**Summary**
In this trademark and copyright infringement suit, Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited (plaintiff no.1) and its trademark-holding partnership firm (plaintiff no.2) alleged that defendants no.1 (Nitish Kumar) and no.2 (sole proprietorship "Hero Electric @Hero Motocrop") dishonestly adopted and used the plaintiffs' registered trademarks "HERO ELECTRIC", "HERO" formative marks (registered since 2008 in Class 12), logos, and copyrighted artistic/literary works to operate a rogue website www.evbikedealership.online and email contact@evbikedealership.online, falsely soliciting dealership enquiries, impersonating the plaintiffs, and fraudulently collecting money (evidenced by bank records showing over Rs.8.84 lakhs withdrawn from victims via forged documents). The suit sought permanent injunction, damages, costs, domain/email transfer, and other reliefs. Summons issued on 14.02.2022 with ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the impugned use, website takedown, and domain transfer; defendants never appeared despite service, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The Court, noting defendants' wilful default, uncontroverted pleadings/documents proving long-standing goodwill/reputation of "HERO ELECTRIC" (with revenues in crores, awards, extensive promotion), clear infringement/passing off/copyright violation, cheating of public via scam, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favouring plaintiffs, decreed the suit ex-parte without formal evidence (as repetitive), granted permanent injunction, Rs.20 lakh aggravated/punitive damages, Rs.3 lakh costs, domain/email transfer to plaintiffs, and restraint on the impugned bank account.
**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case:**
- In IPD matters, where defendants remain ex-parte despite service and material on record sufficiently establishes plaintiffs' claim (including infringement, goodwill, fraud via rogue website), the Court can pass decree/summary judgment without directing formal ex-parte evidence, as it would be futile/repetitive — invoking Rule 27 Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and Rule 1 Chapter VII Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018; relying on Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja (2014:DHC:964) (reasoning paras as per judgment).
- Long, continuous, extensive use of a mark like "HERO ELECTRIC" since 2008, coupled with substantial sales (crores), promotion expenses, awards, and registrations, establishes acquired distinctiveness, reputation, goodwill, and entitlement to high protection against infringement/passing off — uncontroverted in ex-parte scenario.
- Rogue websites impersonating reputed brands to solicit fake dealerships/funds constitute trademark infringement (Sections 29, 30 Trade Marks Act, 1999), passing off, copyright violation (Section 51 Copyright Act, 1957), and cheating, warranting permanent injunction, punitive/aggravated damages (per matrix in Koninklijke Philips NV v. Amazestore CS(COMM) 737/2016), costs, and domain/email transfer to prevent continuing harm and public deception.
- In ex-parte IP infringement cases involving clear evidence of fraud (bank records, forged documents), irreparable injury to reputation/goodwill and balance of convenience tilt decisively in plaintiffs' favour, justifying decree without trial.
**Case Title:** Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited Vs Mr. Nitish Kumar
**Order date:** 04 February 2026
**Case Number:** CS(COMM) 104/2022
**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:903
**Name of court:** High Court of Delhi
**Name of Judge:** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
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 #IPAdjutor
