Case Title: Modern Pipe Industries Vs Raj Kumar Maurya
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 and CS(COMM) 1402/2025
Date of Judgment: 29 May 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4859
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
High Court: Tushar Rao Gedela
In a trademark and copyright infringement dispute, the Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favour of M/s Modern Pipe Industries, the proprietor of the well-known mark “KOANAFLEX” used for pipes, hoses, water storage tanks and allied products since 1988. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was marketing water storage tanks under the mark “KONAFLEX”, which was deceptively similar to its trademark and logo, thereby causing confusion among consumers.
Court observed that the defendant’s mark “KONAFLEX” was visually, structurally and phonetically almost identical to “KOANAFLEX”. The Court found that the plaintiff had established prior adoption, extensive use, goodwill and reputation in the market, while the defendant had entered the market much later and failed to provide a convincing explanation for adopting a nearly identical mark and artistic style. The Court also rejected the defendant’s objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and the pendency of a separate dispute involving the plaintiff’s mark.
Holding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and satisfied the requirements for interim injunction, the Court restrained the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from using the mark “KONAFLEX” or any deceptively similar mark, and from reproducing or using any artistic work substantially similar to the plaintiff’s “KOANAFLEX” logo during the pendency of the suit.
[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception,interpretation and presentation of facts and law.]
=====
KOANAFLEX vs KONAFLEX: When a Single Letter Makes All the Difference — Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark and Copyright Battle Over Water Storage Tanks
Introduction
In the competitive world of industrial and household products, a brand name is often the most valuable asset a business possesses. When a competitor adopts a name, logo, and artistic style that is virtually indistinguishable from an established brand, the law of trademarks and copyright steps in to protect the original creator. This case, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 29 May 2026, presents a fascinating intersection of trademark law, copyright protection, passing off, and the doctrine of prior user all arising from a dispute over two marks that differ by just one letter: KOANAFLEX and KONAFLEX, both used on plastic water storage tanks sold to ordinary consumers across India.
The case raises important questions about what happens when a long-established business discovers that a newer entrant has not merely copied its brand name but has also replicated its logo font, letter styling, colour scheme, and product presentation in a manner so close that even an attentive observer would struggle to tell the two apart.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, M/s Modern Pipe Industries, is a partnership firm presently comprising two partners, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Nayar and Mr. Mohit Nayar. The firm traces its origins to 1988, when what was then a partnership firm — also bearing the name M/s Modern Pipe Industries — commenced business in the manufacture and sale of hose pipes and allied products. Over the following decades, the original partnership saw changes: three partners retired in 2003, following which Mr. Rajiv Kumar Nayar continued alone as a sole proprietor, and the current partnership firm was reconstituted in 2013. The plaintiff thus claims to be the successor-in-interest of the original 1988 firm, and asserts continuous operation under that name for over three and a half decades.
The trademark at the heart of the dispute is KOANAFLEX. According to the plaintiff, this mark was coined and adopted in 1988 as a creative combination of the Hindi word "KOANA" (meaning "corner") and the English word "FLEX" (denoting flexibility), originally conceived for use on flexible hose pipes that could bend at corners. The word mark was also rendered in Hindi script on products. The plaintiff states that it initially registered the mark KOANAFLEX in Class 21 (which covers household articles and containers), and that registration remained valid until it lapsed in 2009, attributed to health issues suffered by the proprietor. The mark was subsequently re-registered in Class 21, with fresh registration granted by the Trade Marks Registry on 12 April 2024.
From modest beginnings with four employees and a single machine, the plaintiff grew into one of the leading manufacturers in the PVC pipe industry, now operating over 25 machines in a facility exceeding 60,000 square feet. Its product range expanded significantly under the KOANAFLEX brand to include garden pipes and hoses in more than nine varieties, lay flat tubes, borewell pipes, PVC agricultural pipes, PVC electrical conduit pipes, and UPVC plumbing pipes and fittings. From 2023 onwards, the plaintiff also ventured into the manufacture and sale of plastic water storage tanks under the same mark.
The plaintiff also permitted two other entities M/s NYR Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Future Plastics Industries to use the KOANAFLEX mark under its authority. Both entities issued formal certificates and No Objection letters on record, acknowledging that they were not owners of the trademark and that their use was entirely based on permission granted by M/s Modern Pipe Industries. The mark was also created in a stylised artistic form in 2018, displayed prominently in a distinctive yellow-background logo, and social media promotion of the brand began in 2021.
The defendant, Mr. Rajkumar Maurya, operates a proprietorship firm called M/s Satyam Industries from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff claims that back in 2022, the defendant had actually approached the plaintiff seeking a dealership for KOANAFLEX products, which request was refused owing to existing business arrangements. By late August and September 2025, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had begun selling plastic water storage tanks under the mark KONAFLEX a name that is identical to KOANAFLEX except for the omission of the letter "A". The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had copied its logo and overall artistic style.
The plaintiff filed the present suit CS(COMM) 1402/2025 before the High Court of Delhi for trademark infringement and copyright infringement, accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking an interim injunction. A separate cancellation petition C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 was also filed before the same court. The applications were heard together.
The Dispute
The core dispute is relatively straightforward in its facts though legally nuanced in its resolution. The plaintiff asserts that it has been using the mark KOANAFLEX continuously since 1988, has built up enormous goodwill and reputation over more than three decades, adopted a stylised artistic logo of the mark in 2018, and entered the water storage tank market from March 2023. The defendant, on the other hand, applied for registration of the word mark KONAFLEX on 12 April 2024, and separately for the device mark (logo) KONAFLEX on 9 October 2025, both applications being on a "proposed to be used" basis — meaning the defendant had not even claimed prior use at the time of filing. The first invoice showing the defendant's actual sale of goods under the KONAFLEX mark is dated 27 January 2025.
The plaintiff's grievance is twofold. First, the word KONAFLEX is deceptively similar differing by only one letter to the plaintiff's registered word mark KOANAFLEX. Second, and perhaps more strikingly, the artistic style of the defendant's KONAFLEX logo is almost a replica of the plaintiff's KOANAFLEX logo: same thick lettering, same stylised font, same slight gap between particular letters, same black lettering on white background when placed on water tanks.
The defendant contested the suit on multiple grounds. It argued that the plaintiff's original trademark registration had lapsed and was not validly subsisting. It pointed to a suit filed by a third party against the plaintiff, alleging that even the plaintiff was an infringer of the mark KANAFLEX, suggesting the plaintiff's own title to the mark was under a cloud. It challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing both parties are based in Uttar Pradesh and no cause of action had arisen in Delhi. It also challenged the plaintiff's copyright claim, saying there was insufficient documentary proof that the plaintiff had actually created the artistic logo work. The defendant offered its own explanation for adopting KONAFLEX: that water tanks are placed in corners ("KONA" in Hindi) of terraces, and the tanks are made of flexible material, hence "FLEX."
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The court framed its analysis around the well-established "triple test" applicable to interim injunction applications: whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience tilts in its favour, and whether irreparable harm would result if no injunction is granted. At this interlocutory stage, the court emphasised that no mini-trial of evidence is conducted only a general examination of the merits suffices.
On the question of similarity of marks, the court undertook a visual comparison of the plaintiff's mark KOANAFLEX and the defendant's mark KONAFLEX and found the resemblance to be striking. Except for the single letter "A" in KOANAFLEX, the marks are virtually identical in appearance. The court noted that the phonetic similarity between the two marks is also uncanny. Looking at the stylised logos as placed on the actual products water storage tanks the court found that even a careful observer would struggle to distinguish one from the other unless examining them very closely. The font, letter thickness, the slight gap between specific letters, the use of dark colour on white background all are practically identical. The court concluded unambiguously that KONAFLEX is deceptively similar to KOANAFLEX.
The court also addressed the consumer confusion aspect with practical common sense. Water storage tanks are products purchased by ordinary members of the public, including plumbers, who may not scrutinise brand names minutely. Applying the standard of an ordinary consumer of average intelligence with imperfect recollection a test well-established in Indian trademark law the court held that such a consumer would inevitably be confused into believing that the defendant's goods emanate from the plaintiff. Since the products themselves are identical and the trade channels and distribution networks would naturally overlap, the risk of confusion is all the more real. This reasoning aligns with the test laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 672, which the court applied to find that the plaintiff was "first in the market" and had priority over the defendant in respect of water storage tanks.
On the copyright dimension, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce adequate documentary proof of having created the original artistic work in the KOANAFLEX logo. The court acknowledged this argument but found it unpersuasive at the interim stage. It reasoned that the extensive actual use of the artistic mark substantiated by years of invoices, social media presence from 2021, and widespread commercial activity itself corroborates the prima facie claim that the plaintiff created and adopted the artistic work in 2018. The court left a definitive determination of copyright ownership for the trial stage.
On the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's own mark was "under a cloud" because a third party had filed a suit against the plaintiff alleging infringement of the mark KANAFLEX, the court disposed of this contention efficiently. It noted that the plaintiff had itself disclosed this pending suit fairly and voluntarily, which weighed in the plaintiff's favour in terms of candour. The court held that the mere pendency of such a suit could not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief against the defendant in the present proceedings. The effect of any eventual judgment in that suit on these proceedings could be considered at the appropriate time.
The territorial jurisdiction challenge was addressed by relying on a very recent precedent of the Delhi High Court's own Division Bench in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., decided in FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025 on 3 December 2025. That judgment held that where a party maintains an interactive website accessible from a particular location, the courts at that location have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaintiff had asserted that the defendant's website was interactive and that the defendant had offered to deliver products in Delhi. The court treated this as a mixed question of law and fact incapable of resolution at the interim stage without conducting a mini-trial, and relied on the Kohinoor Seeds principle to decline the defendant's jurisdictional challenge for the present.
A particularly interesting aspect of the court's reasoning concerned the defendant's explanation for adopting the mark KONAFLEX. The defendant's story that tanks are placed in corners ("KONA") of terraces and made of flexible material ("FLEX") was found to be almost a verbatim repetition of the plaintiff's own explanation for coining KOANAFLEX. The court found it inexplicable that while the defendant offered a linguistic justification for the word, it offered absolutely no explanation for why the font, stylisation, letter thickness, colour scheme, and placement of the mark on the product are virtually identical to the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic work. This, in the court's assessment, pointed strongly to dishonest adoption by the defendant.
The court also noted another significant evidentiary point: the defendant had applied for trademark registration on a "proposed to be used" basis meaning, at the time of filing, the mark had not yet been used commercially. The first actual invoice of sale under KONAFLEX dates only to January 2025. This contrasts sharply with the plaintiff's use since 1988 and its water storage tank sales evidenced from March 2023. The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidance in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Civil Appeal No. 2768 of 2023, decided on 14 September 2023, which held that at the interim injunction stage, courts need to appreciate the substantial goodwill of the plaintiff based on sales figures and promotional expenditure. The plaintiff's detailed financial data showing total sales crossing Rs. 13.25 crore in 2024-2025 alone, with consistent sales figures and advertising expenditures over more than a decade left little doubt about the substantial goodwill vested in the KOANAFLEX brand.
On the balance of convenience, the court was persuaded by the plaintiff's argument that the defendant would suffer no significant hardship from the injunction because the defendant was already selling water storage tanks under the entirely different brand SATYAM and could continue to do so. The balance of convenience therefore tilted clearly in favour of the plaintiff.
Final Decision of the Court
The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant along with its proprietor, agents, representatives, employees, associated firms, affiliates, and all persons acting on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, advertising, or in any other manner using the trademark KONAFLEX or its associated logo, or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark KOANAFLEX and its logo, so as to cause confusion or convey a false impression of association amounting to passing off. Separately, the defendant was also restrained from reproducing, communicating, or adapting the artistic work of the KONAFLEX logo or any substantially similar work, so as to infringe the plaintiff's copyright in the KOANAFLEX artistic work.
Points of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment contributes meaningfully to several areas of intellectual property law. It reaffirms that in a passing off and copyright infringement suit, a plaintiff does not need a subsisting trademark registration to seek injunctive relief — prior use and established goodwill are sufficient. Even where a trademark registration has lapsed and been re-obtained, the continuity of use remains a powerful indicator of entitlement.
The judgment settles that the test of deceptive similarity must be applied from the perspective of a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection not a person who scrutinises marks minutely side by side. A difference of a single letter in an otherwise identical word and logo is insufficient to escape the charge of deceptive similarity, particularly when the visual, structural, and phonetic presentation is near-identical.
It further reinforces that the pendency of a third-party suit against the plaintiff does not automatically bar the plaintiff from maintaining its own suit for injunction, unless the third-party suit results in an adverse finding on the plaintiff's title.
On territorial jurisdiction, the court applied the interactive website principle from the Division Bench ruling in Kohinoor Seeds to hold that Delhi courts could exercise jurisdiction if the defendant's website was accessible and interactive from Delhi, even without proof of an actual completed sale in Delhi.
The court also clarified citing Brihan Karan Sugar (supra) that at the interim injunction stage, the standard is whether the plaintiff's goodwill is established through sales figures and promotional expenditure, not whether every aspect of its case has been proved conclusively. This lowers the evidentiary threshold at the interlocutory stage while preserving the right of parties to contest the matter fully at trial.
Case Details
Title: M/S Modern Pipe Industries Vs. Raj Kumar Maurya Proprietor of M/S Satyam Industries & Anr.
Date of Order: 29 May 2026
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 & CS(COMM) 1402/2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4859
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice 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 SEO Titles
- KOANAFLEX vs KONAFLEX: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Trademark and Copyright Battle
- One Letter, One Court Order: How Delhi High Court Protected a 37-Year-Old Brand from Copycat Competitor
- Deceptive Similarity in Trademarks: Delhi High Court on KOANAFLEX vs KONAFLEX Water Tank Dispute
- Prior User Rights in Indian Trademark Law: Lessons from the KOANAFLEX Injunction Case 2026
- Delhi High Court on Copyright Infringement of Logo Artistic Work: The KOANAFLEX Judgment Explained
- How Indian Courts Decide Interim Injunctions in Trademark Passing Off Cases: A 2026 Delhi High Court Analysis
- Interactive Website and Territorial Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Applies Kohinoor Seeds Principle in IP Dispute
SEO Tags
KOANAFLEX trademark, KONAFLEX trademark, Delhi High Court IP judgment 2026, trademark infringement India, passing off law India, copyright infringement logo India, deceptive similarity trademark, prior user rights trademark India, interim injunction trademark India, water storage tank brand dispute, PVC pipe trademark case, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, triple test injunction India, artistic work copyright India, Trade Marks Act India, Copyright Act 1957 India, Neon Laboratories Supreme Court, Brihan Karan Sugar judgment, Kohinoor Seeds Delhi High Court, territorial jurisdiction trademark suit, interactive website jurisdiction India, IP High Court Delhi 2026, trademark registration lapse India, passing off goodwill India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Head Note
Facts: The plaintiff, a PVC pipe manufacturer using the trademark KOANAFLEX since 1988, filed a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against the defendant who began selling water storage tanks under the near-identical mark KONAFLEX from January 2025. The plaintiff held a registered trademark in Class 21 (granted 12 April 2024) and claimed copyright in the stylised KOANAFLEX logo created in 2018. The defendant's mark differed from the plaintiff's by only one letter and the artistic logo was visually near-identical in font, style, and colour scheme.
Decision: The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark KONAFLEX or any deceptively similar mark and from reproducing the plaintiff's copyrighted logo, holding that the plaintiff had established prior use, substantial goodwill, deceptive similarity of marks, and prima facie copyright ownership, while the defendant failed to demonstrate prior adoption, market entry, or any credible independent origin for its mark or logo.
