No interim relief, Delhi court orders disclaimer in case involving medical humanitarian organization
03 June 2026
Savitha K. Jagadeesan | a senior resident partner @ Kochhar & Co., Chennai
According to Savitha K. Jagadeesan, a senior resident partner at Kochhar & Co. in Chennai, courts are increasingly inclined to adopt a proportionality-based approach in trademark disputes involving creative and expressive content.
“Mere unauthorized use of a well-known mark in a film may not automatically justify injunctive relief unless the plaintiff can demonstrate tangible reputational harm, unfair advantage, dilution or likely change in consumer perception,” she said.
Jagadeesan said this was the key takeaway from the trademark infringement case involving the medical humanitarian organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) or Doctors Without Borders and the Indian film Jigra.
The movie includes scenes where the characters try to escape from prison via a cross-border route by pretending to be MSF staff. MSF filed the case against the makers of Jigra, Dharma Productions, arguing that such portrayal misrepresents the organization, harms its goodwill and reputation and infringes its trademark.
The Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief in the case but instead directed Dharma Productions to put a disclaimer at the start of the film. According to Justice Tejas Karia, the plaintiff was not able to prove that the defendant gained economic benefits or an unfair advantage by using MSF’s mark in the movie. The court also stated that the said depiction of characters posing as MSF staff were not meant to hurt the organization’s reputation and goodwill, and that it was central to the story.
Jagadeesan remarked that the Delhi High Court adopted a balanced approach by refusing to grant an interim injunction while directing the producers to include a disclaimer. “In trademark disputes involving expressive works such as films, courts generally require a strong prima facie case of irreparable harm, dilution or unfair commercial exploitation before granting injunctive relief. While the court acknowledged the possibility of reputational impact, it appears to have considered that an outright restraint on the release or exhibition of the film would be disproportionate at the interim stage. By directing the inclusion of a disclaimer, the court attempted to strike a balance between trademark protection and artistic freedom, while also mitigating the likelihood of public confusion or perceived association with the organization,” she explained.
Jagadeesan added that the case also highlights that disclaimers can serve as an equitable middle path where the court seeks to minimize potential reputational damage without unduly interfering with artistic works.
“Further, the decision reiterates that claims under Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 require a higher evidentiary threshold, particularly in relation to proving unfair advantage or detriment to the distinctive character or reputation of the mark,” Jagadeesan said.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
