Case Title: Maschio Gaspardo S.P.A Vs Maschio Crop Protection LLP
Date of Order: 14.08.2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 842/2025
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
The Plaintiff, an internationally recognized agricultural equipment manufacturer with longstanding use and registration of the “MASCHIO” trademark (including stylized variants), found in October 2024 that the Defendant, Maschio Crop Protection LLP, was using the mark “MASCHIO” and its variants for similar agricultural goods in India. The Plaintiff’s mark, originating from the founder’s family name, has been used since 1964 globally, and since 1998 in India through its subsidiary, with significant sales and social media presence (para 23–23.5). Upon investigation, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant’s use of the “MASCHIO” mark (along with “ITALIAN”) on products and e-commerce platforms, which the Plaintiff contended was an act of deliberate imitation likely to confuse consumers and dilute the brand’s goodwill (para 23.6–23.19).
Procedurally, the Plaintiff sought exemption from pre-institution mediation and original document filing, which the Court granted. Applications for leave to file additional documents were also allowed. The plaint was ordered to be registered, and summons issued for service (para 2–21).
The core dispute concerned the allegation of infringement of the Plaintiff's registered “MASCHIO” trademark, passing off, and unfair trade practices by the Defendant using identical or deceptively similar marks in the same industry sector, potentially misleading the public about association with the Plaintiff (para 12, 23.11–23.17, 28).
The Court, finding a prima facie case, balance of convenience in Plaintiff's favour, and irreparable harm to Plaintiff if not protected, granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the Defendant and affiliates from using “MASCHIO,” “MASCHIO ITALIAN,” or any deceptively similar marks or names in relation to goods/services identical or similar to the Plaintiff’s, until the next hearing (para 29–30).
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
