Delhi HC Grants Finecure Interim Relief Over Alleged Copying of Website, Business Credentials

The order, dated November 5, 2026, was passed in Finecure Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Mr Nilesh Jain & Ors., CS(COMM) 1207/2026. The dispute concerns allegations that the website operating at www.cubitlifesciences.com reproduced substantial portions of Finecure’s website, www.finecurepharma.com, and presented Finecure’s corporate particulars, manufacturing credentials, products and achievements as those of the defendants. The court’s decision grants interim protection; it does not finally decide the suit or award damages.

Finecure instituted the suit seeking a permanent injunction against the reproduction, publication, communication to the public or other infringement of the copyrighted content and artistic material appearing on its website. Alongside the suit, it filed an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Presenting the company’s background, Finecure’s counsel submitted that it had been engaged in medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations since 1996 under the brand name “FINECURE”.

The company described itself as a pharmaceutical and nutraceutical manufacturer offering more than 250 formulations across therapeutic categories, including anti-infectives and antibiotics, cardiovascular and metabolic care, gastrointestinal and hepatic care, respiratory and anti-allergic care, orthopaedics and analgesics, neurology and axonal regeneration, and nutritional supplements.

According to its submissions, the company’s products include FINEMOX, FINETRIAX, BPGARD, CAROSU, RABIFINE, PEPCARE, MYNERVE and MENUVIT. Finecure also stated that it had established a presence in more than 20 international markets and had built a substantial pharmaceutical and nutraceutical business.

Explaining the basis of its copyright claim, Finecure relied on Copyright Registration No. A/79409/2007 for its original artistic work and asserted ownership of the original literary and other material comprised in its website. The material identified in its claim included text, product descriptions, articles, photographs, images, graphics, layout, colour scheme, arrangement and overall design.

Finecure submitted that its website was registered on June 7, 2005, and had since been continuously maintained, updated and developed to reflect its products, services and corporate information. It maintained that this work involved significant investment of time, skill, labour and resources.

The company further explained that Tristate Technology LLP had created the website on its specific instructions and under its direction and control. Through a letter dated September 7, 2026, the agency assigned, transferred and conveyed to Finecure all rights, title and interest, including copyright, in the relevant works, absolutely and in perpetuity. Finecure also submitted that its employees had created the individual product artworks and other original website elements during their employment. Each webpage, it said, carried a copyright notice identifying Finecure Pharmaceuticals Limited and reserving all rights.

Describing the defendants’ roles, Finecure identified defendant No. 1 as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Defendant No. 2, Cubit Lifesciences LLP, was described as a pharmaceutical business with its registered address in Gujarat, while defendants Nos. 3 to 7 were identified as its designated partners responsible for conducting its business.

The dispute arose after Finecure allegedly discovered the disputed website in the fourth week of October 2026. The company claimed that the defendants had substantially reproduced, adapted and communicated its copyrighted works without authorisation. It stated that it immediately arranged a screen recording of the website on October 27, 2026, and that the recording’s hash value had been recorded and verified.

Finecure submitted that subsequent WHOIS and ICANN searches showed that defendant No. 1 had registered the disputed website on August 13, 2026. Its counsel also stated that defendant No. 1 appeared to be associated with CRAnTI Technologies Pvt. Ltd., an information technology and web development agency. This association was presented as the plaintiff’s submission.

The company also relied on an earlier commercial relationship to argue that the copying was deliberate. According to Finecure, defendant No. 3 had entered into an agreement with it on April 17, 2014, for third-party manufacturing of pharmaceutical preparations. Finecure stated that it manufactured products according to that defendant’s specifications, which the defendant branded and marketed as its own until 2018. On this basis, Finecure contended that defendants Nos. 2 to 7 were already familiar with its business and products and had deliberately targeted its website content.

Detailing the alleged copying, Finecure submitted that the disputed website reproduced its corporate identity and particulars, including its Corporate Identity Number, registered office address, year of incorporation and DUNS registration status. It also alleged that the website repeatedly referred to Finecure by name and adopted its tagline, “Making Lives Healthier”, as the defendants’ own mission and foundational mandate.

Finecure further alleged that the website had displayed its packaging and artwork for FINEMOX, FINETRIAX, BPGARD, CAROSU, MYNERVE, RABIFINE, PEPCARE and MENUVIT, although those displays were subsequently removed. Separately, it submitted that photographs of its product packs bearing its copyrighted works appeared on the disputed website.

The alleged reproduction extended beyond individual product images. Finecure said substantial portions of its website’s text, layout and design had been copied almost verbatim, including statistics, manufacturing content, the amoxicillin-clavulanate section, the people and culture section, news posts, and header and footer designs. A comparison table reproduced in the order placed screenshots of the two websites side by side.

Finecure also alleged that the defendants presented its awards, manufacturing credentials, production capacities, workforce and product portfolio as their own. According to the company, these representations were used to solicit business through enquiry portals, quotation requests, and institutional and tender supply offerings. It argued that the unauthorised reproduction, adaptation and communication of its works infringed its exclusive rights under Section 14 and constituted infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The order records no submissions from the defendants. The appearance section states “None” for the defendants, and the court directed that summons and notices be issued to them. Consequently, the document does not contain their explanation for the website similarities, any challenge to Finecure’s ownership claims, or any assertion of permission to use the disputed material. Their substantive defence cannot be stated from this order.

Assessing the material before it, the court held that the September 7, 2026 assignment letter and Copyright Registration No. A/79409/2007 provided prima facie support for Finecure’s claim. Its comparison of the websites revealed substantial reproduction of original content, including text, photographs, graphics and product packaging artwork.

The court also noted the reproduction of Finecure’s corporate identity and particulars, repeated references to the company, adoption of its tagline, and use of photographs of its product packs bearing original artistic works. It further observed that substantial portions of Finecure’s website layout and design had been reproduced and that its business credentials and achievements were represented as those of the defendants.

Considering these circumstances together, the court found that they prima facie indicated unauthorised reproduction and use of Finecure’s copyrighted works. It concluded:

“Accordingly, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of copyright infringement.”

On the balance of convenience, the court held that the defendants had not demonstrated any right or authorisation to use the works. Allowing their continued use would permit unauthorised commercial exploitation and adversely affect Finecure’s commercial interests and reputation. Conversely, restraining such use would cause the defendants no legitimate prejudice.

The court also found a risk of irreparable injury. It reasoned that continued unauthorised use could harm Finecure’s reputation and brand equity, erode consumer trust and market credibility, and produce consequences that damages could not adequately compensate.

Accordingly, the court restrained the defendants, their partners, officers, agents and anyone acting on their behalf from uploading, reproducing, publishing, communicating to the public or otherwise infringing the specified copyrighted works. The protection covered the identified artistic work and the original literary works comprised in Finecure’s website, including its content, product descriptions, articles, photographs, images, graphics, layout, colour scheme, arrangement, overall design, and look and feel.

The operative direction in paragraph 27 reads as follows.

The defendants were directed to file their reply to the interim injunction application within four weeks after service of notice, with any rejoinder to be filed before the next hearing. The court also directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within three weeks.

On the main suit, the court ordered issuance of summons and directed the defendants to file their written statements within 30 days of receiving summons, accompanied by affidavits admitting or denying Finecure’s documents. Finecure was permitted to file replications within 30 days of receiving the written statements, together with corresponding affidavits concerning the defendants’ documents. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on January 25, 2027, for completion of service and pleadings.

The court separately exempted Finecure from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, considering the urgent interim relief sought and relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382. It granted two weeks to deposit court fees and permitted additional documents to be filed in accordance with the applicable commercial court provisions and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Finecure’s application seeking leave to add further claims, products, reliefs, damages or parties was also issued notice, returnable on March 3, 2027. The court fixed the same date for the matter to return before it.

The outcome of the November 5 order is therefore an interim injunction based on preliminary findings of copyright infringement, with the defendants given an opportunity to respond and the underlying claim for permanent relief remaining pending.