Tesla Inc. Vs. Tesla Power India Private Limited

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of case

Tesla Inc., a global leader in electric vehicles and energy solutions, filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction to stop the use of marks like "TESLA POWER" and "TESLA POWER USA". The court granted an interim injunction in favour of Tesla Inc., finding a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity of the defendants' marks, which prominently feature "TESLA" – the plaintiff's registered and well-known mark – for allied goods like batteries and inverters. The decision underscores protection for prior users with trans-border reputation, even without local sales, emphasizing that adding descriptive words like "POWER" or "USA" does not distinguish the marks, leading to likely confusion among consumers.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Factual Background

Tesla Inc. adopted the "TESLA" mark in 2003 and began using it commercially from July 2006 for electric vehicles, batteries, solar products, and related services. The company has registrations in India, including word mark "TESLA" under No. 2689306 in Classes 12 and 37 (for automobiles and structural parts, maintenance services), and device marks in Class 9 covering inverters and solar equipment. It generated massive revenues, reaching $98.6 billion in 2023, with its website www.tesla.com attracting millions of Indian visitors annually, building trans-border reputation in India since 2010 through imports and media coverage. Tesla Power India and its associates started using "TESLA POWER USA" and similar marks from 2020 for lead-acid batteries, inverters, UPS, and battery services in Class 9, filing applications like No. 4855017. Despite no US operations, they used "USA" and advertised electric vehicles, leading to media confusion (e.g., Business Standard articles mistaking them for Tesla Inc.) and consumer complaints where people thought they were Tesla's subsidiary.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Procedural Detail

Tesla Inc. sent a cease-and-desist notice on 18.04.2022 after discovering the use, followed by exchanges until March 2023, where defendants refused to stop. The suit CS(COMM) 353/2024 was filed on 24.03.2024 with I.A. 9755/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief. On 02.05.2024, defendant No. 3 undertook not to use the marks for EVs or the word "TESLA", recorded by court, but allegedly violated it by selling scooters and advertising. Arguments concluded on 04.09.2025; judgment reserved and delivered on 24.11.2025. The application was allowed, enforcing the undertaking till suit disposal, extending it to batteries, inverters, UPS for automobiles, and listing for pleadings on 15.01.2026.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Core Dispute

The main fight was whether defendants' "TESLA POWER" and "TESLA POWER USA" infringe plaintiff's "TESLA" marks and pass off their batteries/inverters as connected to Tesla Inc. Plaintiff claimed identical dominant "TESLA" element for cognate goods (batteries as auto parts under Class 12, inverters under Class 9), prior use since 2003, goodwill via revenues/media, actual confusion (media errors, govt notices, consumer approaches), and dishonest adoption post-knowledge (defendants' TM reply citing plaintiff's mark in 2021). Defendants argued honest inspiration from Nikola Tesla, prior third-party "TESLA" uses (e.g., NVIDIA No. 1680147), different goods (lead-acid vs. lithium/solar), no plaintiff sales in India, delay, and crowded field allowing coexistence.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning

The court explained trademarks show source and origin, needing distinctiveness to avoid confusion. On infringement under Sections 28, 29, 31 Trade Marks Act 1999, plaintiff's registrations (e.g., No. 2689306 Class 12/37 for autos/parts; Class 9 devices for inverters) are prima facie valid; batteries are "structural parts" for EVs (more essential than in ICE vehicles), inverters directly overlap, making goods allied/cognate despite Class 9 focus. Defendants' marks subsume "TESLA" entirely; "POWER/USA" descriptive, failing dominant feature test. Court cited Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 1; N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714 for trans-border reputation protecting marks pre-local use. Goodwill proven via $98.6bn revenue, Indian website traffic (e.g., 4.47mn visits 2021), media, CEO fame – implausible defendants unaware. Actual confusion shown (Business Standard 22.12.2021 photo mix-up; Zee News/Economic Times errors; charger queries to Tesla India Motors). Defendants' knowledge from TM objection (Feb 2021, App. 4855802 citing plaintiff's No. 3702930); US/Turkey rejections; contradictory adoption stories (acronym vs. Nikola Tesla); post-undertaking EV ads dishonest. Delay no bar per Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, 2004 SCC OnLine SC 106; Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 34 (dishonest adoption). Third-party "TESLA" (e.g., NVIDIA 1680147 Class 9 computers, post-2003) irrelevant – no battery/EV use in India; plaintiff need not sue all, per Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., MANU/SC/0115/1959; National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., MANU/SC/0369/1970. Approbate/reprobate barred defendants (sought registration yet claimed common), citing Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27; Mohd. Shakir v. Gopal Traders, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2571; Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. (Tianjin) Co. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2968; PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Kurlon Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3275. Under Armour Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion Retail Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2269 clarified replies to exam reports irrelevant absent direct citation. Initial interest confusion per Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784 suffices. Passing off prima facie via goodwill, misrepresentation, damage. Triple identity (marks/goods/channels); balance convenience with plaintiff; irreparable harm from confusion/fraud complaints. Defendants' cases (Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco, 1997 SCC 201; Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Coop. Milk Producers Fedn. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 183) inapplicable – no monopoly claim over class, but specific overlaps. Triple identity, prior rights, dishonest use warranted injunction enforcing 02.05.2024 undertaking comprehensively.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Decision

The application I.A. 9755/2024 allowed; defendants bound by 02.05.2024 undertaking not to manufacture/market EVs under impugned marks/trade names including "TESLA", no "TESLA" word/device use, no EV promotions – extended to all advertising/sales/services/dealing in lead-acid batteries for automobiles, inverters, UPS (including online/e-commerce). Till suit disposal; pleadings before Joint Registrar 15.01.2026.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Concluding Note

This ruling reinforces robust protection for well-known marks like "TESLA" against deceptively similar uses in cognate fields, prioritizing consumer protection from confusion over late entrants' expansions. It balances equity by permitting limited honest concurrent use elsewhere but curbs riding on reputation, setting precedent for trans-border rights in India's evolving EV/battery market amid global brands' entry.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Case Title: Tesla Inc. Vs. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Order date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 353/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10367
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas KariaTesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

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 5 Suitable Titles for this legal analytical article:

1. Guarding the Electric Frontier: Delhi High Court Shields Tesla's Mark from Power Play Infringement

2. Triple Identity Triumph: Analysing Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power on Cognate Goods and Trans-Border Reputation

3. From Nikola to EVs: Decoding Dishonest Adoption in the Tesla Trademark Battle

4. Batteries Not Included: Why Descriptive Suffixes Fail Against Well-Known Marks in CS(COMM) 353/2024

5. Injunction Over Inspiration: Prioritising Confusion Prevention in Tesla's Delhi Victory

=======

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction to Tesla Inc. Against Tesla Power India in Trademark Infringement Suit

New Delhi, November 24, 2025: In Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors. (CS(COMM) 353/2024, Neutral Citation 2025:DHC:10367), the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, allowed I.A. 9755/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, granting Tesla Inc. an interim injunction against the defendants' use of marks like "TESLA POWER" and "TESLA POWER USA".

Tesla Inc., the global electric vehicle giant with "TESLA" registrations in India since 2013 (e.g., No. 2689306 in Classes 12/37 for autos/parts), argued infringement and passing off for defendants' battery/inverter sales in Class 9, claiming deceptive similarity, trans-border reputation via massive revenues ($98.6bn in 2023), Indian website traffic, and actual confusion in media/govt notices. Defendants countered with honest adoption inspired by Nikola Tesla, third-party uses, dissimilar goods (lead-acid vs. lithium/solar), no local sales by plaintiff, and delay.

The court found prima facie infringement: batteries as EV "structural parts" (Class 12 overlap), inverters direct hit (Class 9); "TESLA" dominant, "POWER/USA" descriptive; dishonest adoption post-2021 TM knowledge; confusion likely in cognate EV/battery space. Citing Toyota Jidosha (2018) 2 SCC 1 for trans-border rights, Midas Hygiene (2004 SCC OnLine SC 106) rejecting delay bar, and Under Armour (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2269) on replies, it enforced defendants' 02.05.2024 no-EV undertaking till suit disposal, extending to auto batteries/inverters/UPS sales/services/advertising, including online.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

========