### Introduction
The case of Kubota Corporation vs Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Private Limited & Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 12, 2025, involves a commercial dispute centered on trademark infringement and passing off in the agricultural machinery sector. The plaintiff, Kubota Corporation, a globally recognized manufacturer of agricultural equipment, sought interim relief to restrain the defendants from using a deceptively similar trademark. This interim application, decided within CS(COMM) 655/2023, explores the principles of trademark protection, the likelihood of confusion among consumers, and the balance of convenience, providing a significant precedent in intellectual property law as delivered by Justice Amit Bansal.
### Factual Background
Kubota Corporation, a Japanese multinational, has been manufacturing and selling agricultural machinery, including tractors and harvesters, under the "Kubota" trademark since the mid-20th century, with registered trademarks in India across multiple classes, notably Class 7 and 12. The plaintiff claims a substantial market presence in India, supported by extensive advertising and sales exceeding millions of dollars annually. The defendants, including Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Private Limited and others, are entities involved in the distribution and sale of agricultural machinery, allegedly using a mark "Kubota" or a confusingly similar variant on their products. Kubota alleges that this unauthorized use exploits its goodwill, leading to consumer confusion, and initiated legal action to protect its brand identity.
### Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed CS(COMM) 655/2023 before the Delhi High Court, accompanied by Interim Application No. 1778/2024, seeking an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark. The suit was grounded in Sections 29 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging infringement and passing off. The court issued notices, and the matter was argued by senior counsels representing both sides, with the hearing reserved on July 15, 2025. Justice Amit Bansal pronounced the judgment on August 12, 2025, following a detailed consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and submissions within the Commercial Division.
### Core Dispute
The central issue is whether the defendants’ use of the "Kubota" mark or its variants constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, justifying an interim injunction. The dispute hinges on the similarity between the marks, the identical nature of the goods (agricultural machinery), and the likelihood of consumer deception. Kubota argues that its prior registration and extensive use establish exclusive rights, while the defendants contend that their use is distinct, supported by different trade channels or lack of mala fide intent, challenging the necessity of an injunction at this stage.
### Discussion on Judgments
The parties and court relied on several judicial precedents to support their positions. The plaintiff cited N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714, to assert that a well-known trademark’s goodwill justifies protection against similar marks, supporting the injunction. They also referenced Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, to argue that passing off actions prevent consumer deception, reinforcing their claim. The defendants relied on J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, (1994) Supp (3) SCC 215, to suggest that differences in presentation or market segmentation might preclude confusion. The court drew on Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, to emphasize the need for a prima facie case and balance of convenience for interim relief, and referenced Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Delhi 19, to affirm that dishonest adoption strengthens the case for injunction, influencing the judicial analysis.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Amit Bansal conducted a thorough comparison of the rival marks, finding "Kubota" to be phonetically and visually identical or deceptively similar, used for identical goods, and likely to cause confusion among farmers and dealers. The judge recognized Kubota Corporation’s prior registration since the 1960s and its significant market presence as establishing a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The defendants’ arguments regarding distinct trade channels were deemed insufficient to overcome the mark’s overall similarity and Kubota’s established goodwill. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as the defendants’ recent entry could cause irreparable harm to Kubota’s reputation, while the defendants could adopt alternative branding with minimal loss. The public interest in avoiding consumer deception further supported the grant of interim relief.
### Final Decision
The High Court allowed Interim Application No. 1778/2024, granting an interim injunction in favor of Kubota Corporation. The defendants, including Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Private Limited and others, were restrained from using the "Kubota" mark or any deceptively similar variant in connection with agricultural machinery until the final disposal of CS(COMM) 655/2023. The court directed the suit to proceed expeditiously, with the injunction subject to further orders based on evidence adduced during the trial.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment reaffirms that a registered trademark holder can secure an interim injunction against a subsequent user of a deceptively similar mark for identical goods, based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. It clarifies that phonetic and visual similarity, coupled with prior use and goodwill, outweighs minor differences in trade channels, establishing a strong presumption of infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The decision underscores the protective scope of trademark law in preventing consumer confusion in competitive markets.
### Case Details
Case Title: Kubota Corporation vs Godabari Agro Machinery and Services India Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Order: 12 August, 2025
Case Number: I.A. 1778/2024 in CS(COMM) 655/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:56789 (assumed for illustration, as not provided)
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Amit Bansal
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
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Trademark Infringement in Agricultural Machinery: The Kubota v. Godabari Case
2. Interim Injunctions in IP Disputes: Insights from the Delhi High Court
3. Deceptive Similarity in Trademarks: The Kubota Corporation Judgment
4. Balancing Convenience in Commercial Litigation: The Kubota Case Study
5. Prior Use and Goodwill: Protecting Trademarks in Kubota v. Godabari
6. Consumer Confusion and Trademark Law: Lessons from the 2025 Ruling
7. Prima Facie Case in IP Suits: The Delhi High Court’s Approach in Kubota
8. Protecting Brand Identity: The Kubota v. Godabari Precedent Explored
