Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd

Case Title: Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case Number: CS(COMM) 835/2023

Order Date: 23 September 2024

Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6958

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

---

Facts

The case arose from a trademark dispute between two major players in the consumer electronics industry — Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff) and LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. (the defendant). The dispute concerned the use of the term “QLED”, which stands for “Quantum Dot Light Emitting Diode,” a type of advanced television display technology.

The plaintiff, Quantum Hi-Tech, claimed that it was the proprietor of the registered trademarks “QUANTUM,” “QUANTUM QLED,” and “QUANTUM SMART TV” used in relation to electronic products, particularly televisions. The plaintiff asserted that it had been engaged in the manufacturing and sale of LED and smart televisions under these marks since 2017, and through continuous use, its mark had become distinctive in the market.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant LG Electronics began marketing its televisions under the description “LG QNED” and “LG QLED”, using the term “QLED” prominently in its promotional materials and packaging. The plaintiff alleged that the use of “QLED” by LG was an infringement of its registered trademarks and amounted to passing off. The plaintiff contended that consumers could easily mistake “LG QLED” products as being associated with or endorsed by the plaintiff’s “Quantum QLED” televisions.

In response, LG Electronics contended that “QLED” was not a trademark owned by the plaintiff but a generic and descriptive term used across the global television industry to denote a particular technology. LG claimed that the term “QLED” was coined and first used by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. to describe Quantum Dot-based display technology and was widely used by several global brands such as TCL, Hisense, and OnePlus. Therefore, LG argued, “QLED” could not be monopolized by any single trader, including the plaintiff.

---

Procedural Background

The plaintiff instituted the commercial suit before the Delhi High Court under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging infringement and passing off and seeking a permanent injunction against LG Electronics from using the term “QLED.” Alongside, it filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the disputed mark during the pendency of the suit.

The defendant filed a written statement and opposed the interim relief, asserting that the plaintiff’s registration of “Quantum QLED” was invalid since the term “QLED” was descriptive and generic. It further argued that “QLED” was not the dominant part of the plaintiff’s mark and that the plaintiff had adopted the term to take unfair advantage of an already known global technology descriptor.

The matter was heard by Justice Sanjeev Narula, who had to determine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for injunction, whether the term “QLED” was capable of exclusive ownership, and whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of restraining LG’s use of the term.

---

Core Legal Dispute

The central issue before the Court was whether “QLED” constituted a distinctive trademark capable of exclusive protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, or whether it was a generic and descriptive term that referred to a type of display technology available to all in the television industry.

The dispute required the Court to examine the distinction between descriptive terms (which describe the nature or quality of goods and cannot ordinarily be monopolized) and distinctive marks (which identify the source or origin of goods). The Court also had to analyze whether the plaintiff’s registration for “Quantum QLED” was valid and enforceable, and whether the use of “QLED” by LG amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Act.

---

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Sanjeev Narula began his analysis by revisiting the principles governing trademark protection. He referred to Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits the registration of marks that are descriptive or indicative of the kind, quality, or intended purpose of the goods. He further cited Section 30(2)(a), which provides that fair use of descriptive terms in accordance with their ordinary meaning does not constitute infringement.

The Court examined the plaintiff’s registrations for “Quantum QLED” and “Quantum Smart TV,” noting that while the word “Quantum” might have some distinctiveness, the term “QLED” was clearly descriptive of the television technology employed. The judge observed that “QLED” was not invented or uniquely associated with the plaintiff but was widely used in the industry as an abbreviation for “Quantum Dot Light Emitting Diode.”

The Court relied on several precedents to illustrate the treatment of generic and descriptive marks. It cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1506, which held that descriptive terms that directly describe the nature or quality of goods cannot be monopolized, even if registered. Similarly, the Court referred to ITC Limited v. Nestle India Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3515, where the Delhi High Court observed that words like “Magic Masala” used for noodles were common trade expressions and incapable of exclusivity.

Justice Narula also drew an analogy from the case Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1098, where it was held that if a term is descriptive of the goods themselves, then even registration cannot confer an exclusive right to prevent others from using it bona fide in its descriptive sense.

After reviewing industry evidence, the Court noted that multiple manufacturers, including global companies like Samsung, TCL, and Hisense, were using “QLED” to describe their Quantum Dot display technology. It was also observed that the plaintiff’s own marketing materials used the term “QLED” to refer to the technological characteristics of its televisions, rather than as a source identifier. This confirmed that the plaintiff had used “QLED” descriptively, not as a brand.

The Court further referred to Section 31(1) of the Act, which provides that registration is prima facie evidence of validity, but this presumption can be rebutted by demonstrating that the mark is descriptive or generic. Here, LG successfully rebutted the presumption by producing extensive evidence of industry-wide usage of the term “QLED.”

The judge emphasized that trademark law seeks to balance two objectives: protecting distinct source identifiers and preventing monopolization of common trade or technological terms. He reasoned that granting exclusive rights over “QLED” would unfairly restrict competition and impede technological communication within the electronics industry.

Justice Narula also addressed the plaintiff’s claim of confusion and passing off. He found that given LG’s global reputation and distinct house mark “LG,” there was no likelihood of consumers mistaking LG’s “QLED” televisions as products of the plaintiff. He cited Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, emphasizing that the test for deceptive similarity requires considering the overall impression, nature of goods, and consumer perception. In this case, consumers purchasing premium televisions were well-informed and technologically aware, making confusion highly improbable.

---

Decision

After a detailed examination, the Court concluded that “QLED” was a descriptive and generic term denoting a technology type rather than a trademark capable of exclusive protection. The plaintiff’s attempt to claim monopoly over the term was inconsistent with the basic principles of trademark law.

The Delhi High Court thus dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. It held that LG Electronics, like other industry players, was entitled to use “QLED” in a descriptive sense to denote its Quantum Dot display technology.

Justice Narula clarified that this decision did not invalidate the plaintiff’s registration but rendered it unenforceable against fair descriptive use. The Court concluded that consumers associate “QLED” with a type of television technology rather than a specific brand, and hence, its protection under trademark law was not justified.

The judgment reinforced a crucial principle — that the law does not protect monopolies over technological terms necessary for describing the nature or quality of goods. In the modern marketplace, such terms must remain free for all to use, ensuring healthy competition and clarity for consumers.

---

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

---

Suggested Titles for Publication

1. When Technology Meets Trademark: The “QLED” Case and the Limits of Exclusive Rights

2. Generic or Proprietary? Decoding the Delhi High Court’s Approach to Technological Marks

3. QLED and the Law: Understanding Descriptive Marks in Modern IP Jurisprudence

4. Trademark Protection and Technological Vocabulary: Lessons from Quantum v. LG

5. The Fine Line Between Innovation and Monopolization: A Legal Insight into the QLED Trademark Dispute