Delhi High Court Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has refused to grant interim relief in a trademark infringement case filed against Jigra over the use of its name. Alia Bhatt. However, the court has directed Dharma Productions to include a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, clarifying that the depiction is not intended to harm the reputation of the organization.Justice Tejas Karia issued the order while hearing MSF’s plea, which had objected to the portrayal of its organization in the story. Some characters in the film allegedly pose as members of Doctors Without Borders to facilitate illegal border crossings. The court said, “The Plaintiff has not been able to demonstrate that the Defendants have derived any unfair advantage by using the Plaintiff’s Mark in the disputed film. Nevertheless, given the Plaintiff’s reputation in India and the manner in which the Plaintiff’s Mark is being used, such use is likely to adversely affect the distinctive character and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Mark.”Refusing to stay the release of the film or the use of the mark, the court stressed the need for a balanced approach and directed the inclusion of a suitable acknowledgment at the opening of the film.The April 30 order said, “In the interest of justice and to balance the convenience between the parties, it is expedient to avoid causing irreparable harm to the plaintiff to limit the damage to the distinctive character and reputation of the plaintiff’s mark during the pendency of this suit by directing the defendants to display a proper acknowledgment at the beginning of the disputed film.”MSF, an international humanitarian organization operating under the name ‘Médecins Sans Frontieres’, provides medical assistance in conflict zones, epidemics, natural disasters and areas lacking health care access. This non-profit organization works in more than 74 countries around the world.In its petition, MSF argued that the film misrepresented its identity by depicting individuals impersonating its employees for illegal border crossings, thereby damaging its reputation and infringing on its trademarks. Its lawyers argued that such portrayal creates a misleading and potentially harmful perception that its credibility could be used to drive illegal immigration, suggesting that anyone could abuse its identity.The organization further claimed that “the unauthorized use of its mark in connection with illegal border crossings takes unfair advantage of and is damaging to the goodwill and reputation of MSF.”The court acknowledged that the filmmakers had indeed used MSF’s symbol, but also said that it was integral to the narrative and removing it could have affected the storytelling. On the issue of undue benefit, the bench concluded that MSF failed to prove that the filmmakers received any financial benefit from the association. The court said, “It cannot be claimed that the defendants have obtained any economic benefit through unjust association with the plaintiff’s mark or by taking advantage of its reputation for their own benefit.”Additionally, the court found no indication that the film suggested any endorsement or affiliation with MSF. It also highlighted the organization’s strong global position, noting that its name commands significant trust among authorities and the public alike. Additionally, the court commented that the filmmakers appeared to have relied on MSF’s established credibility to enhance the realism of the film, even though they could have chosen a fictitious name instead.