SM Motorenteile GmbH Vs. A.A. Automobiles

**Very brief and compact summary**

In this trademark infringement suit filed by German company SM Motorenteile GmbH against A.A. Automobiles & Ors., the Plaintiff claimed exclusive rights over SM Logo-1 and SM Logo-2 in India and sought permanent injunction alleging that Defendants were selling counterfeit gaskets bearing identical SM Logos. Plaintiff relied on Indian registrations and history of ownership changes between Schoettle Motorenteile GmbH and itself. Defendants contended they were authorized distributors of SM branded products since 1997 through Schoettle Motorenteile GmbH and its successor NPR of Europe GmbH, placing on record a 2022 confirmation letter from NPR and import documents. The Court found that SM Logo-2 registration in India still stands in the name of Schoettle Motorenteile GmbH (not Plaintiff), SM Logo-1 is registered in India in Plaintiff's name but acknowledged as jointly owned with Schoettle in foreign jurisdictions, and Defendants produced a prima facie credible authorization document from joint owner NPR of Europe GmbH. Holding that triable issues exist regarding ownership, authorization and genuineness of Defendants' documents, the Court rejected Plaintiff's prayer for pre-trial final judgment granting permanent injunction and directed the matter to proceed to framing of issues.

**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case**

- A pre-trial final judgment granting permanent injunction cannot be passed when credible disputed questions of fact exist regarding title/ownership of trademark and authority to use the mark, even if defence is weak or documents are challenged only by way of bald assertions in written submissions. (Para 31)

- Mere assertion in written submissions that a document produced by defendant appears forged/fabricated is not sufficient to disregard it at pre-trial stage without supporting evidence such as affidavit disputing its genuineness from concerned authority. (Para 28)

- When joint ownership of trademark is acknowledged (especially in foreign jurisdictions) and one co-owner has apparently authorized the defendant to use the mark, the plaintiff cannot obtain final injunction without impleading the co-owner and proving exclusive rights in trial. (Para 29–30)

**Case Details**  

Case Title: SM Motorenteile GmbH Vs. A.A. Automobiles & Ors.  

Order Date: 15th January, 2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 553/2019  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:360  

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

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