The plaintiffs, G4S Limited and its Indian affiliate, filed a commercial suit before the High Court of Delhi seeking permanent injunction, passing off, declaration of their trademark as a well-known mark, rectification of the defendants’ tradename, and damages. The plaintiffs are globally recognized providers of integrated security services and have been operating under the trademark “G4S” and its stylized forms since 1989. Their registrations cover multiple classes including Classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 42, and they operate websites under the domains www.g4s.com and https://www.g4s.com/en-in.
The plaintiffs became aware in March 2025 that the defendants were offering identical security services under the deceptively similar mark “GS4” and the tradename “G S 4 Security Management Private Limited”. The defendants were also operating a domain name www.gs4security.in and actively promoting themselves on social media using the impugned mark. Despite a cease-and-desist notice issued on 17.04.2025, the defendants refused to comply and continued their infringing activities.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had adopted the mark “GS4” by merely rearranging the characters in “G4S”, and used similar font, color, and style in an effort to mislead the public and trade into believing an association with the plaintiffs. The mark “G4S” being coined, distinct and globally reputed, any such mimicry posed a serious risk of deception and confusion among consumers, especially since the services concerned public safety and security.
Upon hearing the plaintiffs, the court noted that the impugned mark “GS4” was structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to “G4S”. The court further observed that such minimal modifications were hardly noticeable to an average consumer with imperfect recollection, and that the defendants had attempted to come deceptively close to the plaintiffs' well-known brand. The court underscored the significance of preventing public confusion in services related to security, where trust in the brand is paramount.
The court held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favour. In view of the potential irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and the risk of public deception, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark or any deceptively similar mark in connection with their security services until the next date of hearing.
