Delhi High Court Fines Instant Bollywood Founder Rs 20 Lakh for Suppressing Facts in Trademark Case
The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹20 lakh on Mandeep Singh, founder of the entertainment platform Instant Bollywood, for not disclosing important facts in a trademark dispute related to the brand. Despite this, the Court granted him interim protection over his rights in the trademark.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Singh had suppressed material facts and directed him to pay ₹5 lakh in each of the four petitions filed by him. The total amount of ₹20 lakh is to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
The dispute concerns the “Instant Bollywood” device mark registered under multiple classes. Singh stated that he started using the brand for entertainment and digital media services in 2012 and has used the device mark since 2016, gaining a large following on social media platforms.
In 2019, Singh entered into an agreement with One Digital Entertainment Pte Ltd (ODE) for managing and developing the brand. As per the agreement, the intellectual property rights were to be jointly owned in a 50:50 ratio. This agreement was terminated in August 2025.
Singh alleged that after termination, he discovered that Shabir Momin, Managing Director of ODE, had applied for and obtained trademark registrations in his own name without informing him.
During the proceedings, Times Internet Inc sought to be added as a party, claiming that Momin had assigned the trademarks to it through an agreement dated October 24, 2025. The Court allowed Times Internet Inc to be impleaded, observing that Singh was aware of the alleged transfer of rights.
On a preliminary assessment, the Court acknowledged that Singh’s 50% ownership in the trademark was clearly recognised in the 2019 agreement. The Court also noted that Singh was not a party to the assignment transaction and had received no payment, raising questions over the legality of the assignment.
To protect Singh’s admitted rights, the Court ordered maintenance of status quo on the trademark assignment and restrained the creation of any third-party rights.
However, the Court accepted Times Internet’s objection that Singh had failed to disclose documents showing that he was aware of the trademark registrations as early as 2022. The Court held that this amounted to suppression of facts but chose not to dismiss the injunction application since Singh’s 50% ownership was prima facie established.
The matter is now listed for further hearing in May 2026.
