Friday, June 27, 2025

Aktiebolaget Volvo Vs. Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd

Case Title: Aktiebolaget Volvo Vs. Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Case Number: CS(COMM) 199/2020 Date of Order: May 13, 2025 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3938

Fact:

Aktiebolaget Volvo (and its associated entities) filed a suit against Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and other defendants, alleging infringement of its well-known "VOLVO" trademark, which is extensively recognized and registered in India. The plaintiffs operate in the automotive and transportation sectors, providing commercial vehicles and related services globally and in India, and have invested heavily in promoting their "VOLVO" brand. The defendants, engaged in the travel and bus services industry, used the "VOLVO" mark without authorization, creating confusion and infringing on the plaintiffs' rights.

Procedural Details:

  • The original suit was filed seeking an injunction to restrain infringement and passing off.
  • The court initially granted ex-parte ad interim injunctions restraining certain defendants from using the "VOLVO" mark.
  • Multiple defendants were served, and some were deleted or made ex parte during the proceedings.
  • The court referred parties for mediation, and some defendants settled.
  • Several defendants, including defendant no.7, did not appear, and the court proceeded ex parte against them.
  • The court ultimately decided the case on merits, addressing damages, infringement, and the defendants' conduct.

Issue:

Whether the defendants' use of the "VOLVO" trademark amounts to infringement and passing off, considering the well-known and registered status of the "VOLVO" mark, and whether the defendants' conduct was deliberate and mala fide, warranting damages and injunctions.

Decision:

  • The court found that the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs' "VOLVO" trademark and had deliberately evaded court proceedings.
  • Defendants no.5, 6, 7, and 8 were noted for continued profit-making despite service and orders.
  • Damages and injunctions were granted against infringing defendants.
  • The court disposed of pending applications and directed the decree sheet to be drawn up, closing all remaining claims and proceedings.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog