The **Bombay High Court**, in a significant ruling on trademark protection for composite marks, granted interim injunction in favor of **Trackon Couriers Private Limited** against the defendant **B. N. Srinivas**, restraining the use of the deceptively similar mark "TRACK-ON" and related variations in the courier and logistics sector.
**Introduction**
This case exemplifies the robust protection afforded to registered composite/label trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly when a dominant word element forms the essential and leading feature of the mark. The Bombay High Court, through Justice Arif S. Doctor, addressed a classic scenario of alleged infringement and passing off arising from a former business associate's attempt to independently adopt and register a nearly identical mark for identical services. The decision underscores that registration of a composite mark confers statutory exclusivity over its prominent verbal components, especially when such components have acquired distinctiveness and goodwill through long-standing use. It also highlights how courts scrutinize claims of prior or independent use, particularly when contradicted by documentary evidence of permissive use and subsequent undertakings to cease. The ruling reinforces principles of honest adoption, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in interim relief applications in commercial IP disputes.
**Factual Background**
Trackon Couriers Private Limited, the plaintiff, has been operating in domestic courier services, international shipping, e-commerce logistics, and supply chain management since 2002. It coined and adopted the term "TRACKON" as a key element of its branding. The plaintiff secured valid and subsisting registrations for composite label marks in Class 39, including "Trackon Couriers" (applied 2004, user claim 2002), "Trackon Couriers Pvt Limited" (applied 2018), and "SURE SAFE SWIFT" (applied 2021), all featuring "TRACKON" prominently alongside a stylized "T" in Devanagari script. These marks enjoyed extensive use, substantial advertising investments, high turnover (exceeding INR 404 crores in 2023-2024), and presence across media, websites, and social platforms, establishing significant goodwill and reputation.
In 2016, the plaintiff appointed the defendant as a business associate to promote its services in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, authorizing use of "M/S. TRACKON COURIERS & CARGO SERVICES" under specific terms via a letter dated May 5, 2016. The defendant and his wife formed a partnership under that name and used "TRACKON" permissively from 2016 to 2023. In October 2023, the plaintiff demanded cessation of "TRACKON" use and name change. Correspondence from October 28 to November 6, 2023, including emails and meeting minutes, showed the defendant's agreement to comply.
However, in September 2024, the plaintiff discovered the defendant's new partnership "TRACK ON EXPRESS LOGISTICS" and trademark application for "TRACK-ON EXPRESS" on a proposed-to-be-used basis. A cease-and-desist notice followed on September 16, 2024, and termination of association on September 19, 2024. The defendant claimed prior independent use since 1998 via an alleged sole proprietorship later converted to partnership, but provided no supporting evidence.
**Procedural Background**
The plaintiff instituted a commercial IP suit before the Bombay High Court, seeking permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, along with other reliefs. Simultaneously, it filed the present interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction pending suit disposal. The matter was heard by Justice Arif S. Doctor, reserved on December 19, 2025, and pronounced on January 22, 2026. The defendant opposed on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction, prior use, and equitable defenses like acquiescence, while alleging suppression of documents by the plaintiff.
**Reasoning and Decision of Court**
The Court rejected the defendant's jurisdictional objection, finding the suit maintainable under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as cause of action arose partly within its jurisdiction through the plaintiff's widespread operations and the defendant's activities impacting the plaintiff's reputation.
On merits, the Court held that "TRACKON" constituted the prominent, essential, and leading feature of the plaintiff's registered composite/label marks. Unauthorized use of this word, even in variations like "TRACK-ON EXPRESS", amounted to infringement under Section 29(9) of the Act, as spoken or visual representation of such dominant element infringes the registered mark. The Court relied on precedents affirming protection for essential features of composite marks, even absent separate word mark registration.
The defendant's claim of prior use since 1998 was disbelieved due to lack of evidence; the 2024 trademark application on proposed-to-be-used basis contradicted prior use assertions. The 2016 letter evidenced only permissive use as an associate "on behalf of" the plaintiff, not independent rights. Email correspondence unequivocally showed the defendant's agreement to cease use and change name, rendering subsequent adoption dishonest and lacking bona fides. No acquiescence or suppression was established, as the plaintiff acted promptly upon discovering resumed use.
The Court found prima facie infringement and passing off, given identical services, deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, and the plaintiff's established goodwill. Balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, with irreparable injury from dilution of reputation if relief denied, while the defendant faced no legitimate prejudice having agreed to discontinue. Interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using "TRACK-ON", "TRACKON", or deceptively similar marks/names, with costs awarded. The order was stayed for four weeks to enable appeal.
**Point of Law Settled in the Case**
A word that forms a prominent, essential, and leading feature of a registered composite or label mark attracts statutory protection under Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such that its unauthorized spoken or visual use constitutes infringement, particularly when the word has acquired goodwill and public association with the registered proprietor, even without separate word mark registration. Permissive or licensed use as a business associate does not confer independent proprietary rights, and subsequent adoption after undertaking to cease use is dishonest, disentitling equitable defenses in interim relief.
**Case Detail**
- **Title**: Trackon Couriers Private Limited Vs B. N. Srinivas
- **Date of Order**: 22nd January 2026
- **Case Number**: Interim Application (L) No. 35022 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 11 of 2025
- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:BHC:OS:2082
- **Name of Court**: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division)
- **Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Justice Arif S. Doctor
**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise 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
**Suggested Titles for this Article**
- Bombay High Court Reinforces Protection for Dominant Word Elements in Composite Trademarks: Trackon Couriers Case Analysis
- TRACKON Triumph: How Bombay HC Granted Interim Injunction Against Deceptively Similar "TRACK-ON" Mark
- Dominant Feature Doctrine Upheld: Interim Relief in Trackon Couriers v. B.N. Srinivas Trademark Dispute
- From Permissive Use to Infringement: Bombay High Court's Key Ruling on TRACKON Trademark
**Suggested Tags**
#TrademarkInfringement #CompositeMarks #BombayHighCourt #TRACKON #InterimInjunction #PassingOff #Section29TradeMarksAct #IntellectualProperty #TradeMarkLaw #ArifSDoctor #CourierServices #PriorUse #GoodwillAndReputation #IPLitigation #CommercialDivision
**Headnote**
Bombay High Court grants interim injunction restraining defendant from using "TRACK-ON EXPRESS" or similar marks, holding that "TRACKON" as prominent essential feature of plaintiff's registered composite marks is infringed under Section 29(9) of Trade Marks Act, 1999; defendant's claim of prior use disbelieved, adoption found dishonest post-undertaking to cease, establishing prima facie case of infringement and passing off with balance of convenience favoring plaintiff.
=====
**Very Brief and Compact Summary**
Trackon Couriers Private Limited, using the coined mark "TRACKON" since 2002 with registered composite label marks in Class 39 and substantial goodwill from extensive use, high turnover, and advertising, appointed defendant B.N. Srinivas as business associate in 2016 for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, permitting use of "TRACKON COURIERS & CARGO SERVICES". The defendant used the name permissively until 2023, when plaintiff demanded cessation and name change; correspondence from October-November 2023 showed defendant's agreement to comply. In 2024, plaintiff discovered defendant's new firm "TRACK ON EXPRESS LOGISTICS" and trademark application for "TRACK-ON EXPRESS" on proposed-to-be-used basis, leading to cease-and-desist and termination notices. Plaintiff filed commercial IP suit and interim application for injunction against infringement and passing off. The Bombay High Court rejected defendant's jurisdictional objection and prior-use claim (unsupported and contradicted by proposed-use application and lack of evidence), found "TRACKON" the prominent essential feature of plaintiff's registered composite marks entitled to protection under Section 29(9), held defendant's adoption dishonest post-undertaking to cease, established prima facie infringement and passing off due to identical services and deceptive similarity, and granted interim injunction restraining use of "TRACK-ON", "TRACKON" or confusingly similar marks/names pending suit, with costs, but stayed for four weeks.
**Crisp Points of Law Settled**
- Registration of a composite/label mark confers statutory exclusivity over its prominent, essential and leading word feature even without separate word-mark registration; unauthorized use of such dominant word (spoken or visual) constitutes infringement under Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially when the word has acquired goodwill and public association with the proprietor. (Paras 12–14, relying on Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 50; Jagdish Gopal Kamath v. Lime and Chilli Hospitality Services, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 531; Prince Pipes and Fittings Ltd. v. Shree Sai Plast Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3743; Hindustan Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. K. Ravindra & Co., 1967 SCC OnLine Bom 123; Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Limited, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 136)
- Permissive/licensed use as business associate does not create independent proprietary rights in the mark; subsequent adoption after express undertaking to cease use and change name is dishonest and lacking bona fides, disentitling equitable defences in interim relief. (Paras 18–25)
- Claim of prior/independent use is liable to be rejected when unsupported by evidence, contradicted by trademark application on proposed-to-be-used basis, and no contemporaneous documents (such as recitals in partnership deed) support alleged prior sole proprietorship or conversion. (Paras 21–24)
**Case Details**
- **Case Title**: Trackon Couriers Private Limited Vs B. N. Srinivas
- **Order Date**: 22nd January 2026
- **Case Number**: Interim Application (L) No. 35022 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 11 of 2025
- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:BHC:OS:2082
- **Name of Court**: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division)
- **Name of Judge**: Justice Arif S. Doctor
**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise 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
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjuto
No comments:
Post a Comment