Introduction:
This analytical legal article examines a key intellectual property enforcement dispute concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and corporate domain name squatting. The legal conflict arose when a global interactive gaming pioneer discovered an entity operating in India that had incorporated its world-renowned, coined house mark directly into its corporate registration and online infrastructure. The High Court considered whether adopting a globally famous, arbitrary mark within a corporate name and domain name for digital marketing activities constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, ultimately granting interim relief to preserve brand integrity.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The litigation originated when Nintendo Co. Ltd. filed a commercial suit seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunctive relief alongside applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The plaintiff, founded on September 23, 1889 in Kyoto, Japan, evolved from a Japanese playing card manufacturer into a global leader in interactive video games and home entertainment consoles. Over the decades, the plaintiff introduced iconic products including Game & Watch (1980), Donkey Kong (1981), Super Mario Bros. (1985), Game Boy (1989), Nintendo DS (2004), Wii (2006), Nintendo Switch (2017), and Nintendo Switch 2 (2025). By late 2025, the plaintiff employed over 8,500 people globally and maintained a market capitalization of approximately 67 billion USD.
In India, the plaintiff registered its word mark NINTENDO under registration number 410209 in Class 28 on September 5, 1983, along with several subsequent formative marks spanning Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 38, 41, and 42. The mark was coined and adopted as an arbitrary term, granting it strong distinctiveness under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
In the second week of November 2025, the plaintiff discovered that an entity incorporated with the Registrar of Companies in Bengaluru under the corporate name Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited was offering digital marketing services—such as online ad campaigns, search engine optimization, and social media analytics—while utilizing the domain name www.nintendotec.in. Investigations indicated that the company was not actively carrying out genuine trade under the name, but was functioning as a corporate squatter. After issuing a cease and desist notice on February 17, 2026, which went unanswered, the plaintiff instituted proceedings. During the court hearing on July 29, 2026, the domain name registrar (Defendant No. 4) noted that the underlying domain had expired on April 21, 2026, and was now available for fresh registration, prompting its deletion from the suit.
Dispute Before the Court:
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the incorporation of the well-known mark NINTENDO into the corporate name Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited and the domain name www.nintendotec.in constituted trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as common law passing off.
The plaintiff contended that NINTENDO is an invented, highly distinctive mark with massive global and domestic reputation. The plaintiff asserted that the adoption of an identical term within a corporate identity for digital advertising services created a strong likelihood of consumer confusion and misrepresentation, suggesting an affiliation where none existed. The plaintiff argued that under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, protection extends even against dissimilar goods and services when a mark possesses exceptional goodwill and repute.
The primary defendants did not appear during the initial hearing to present counter-arguments. Consequently, the Court evaluated the claims based on the uncontroverted plaint and supporting documentation on record.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:
The Court assessed the plaintiff's submissions under the statutory framework of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and settled principles governing interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
In evaluating deceptive similarity, the Court emphasized that NINTENDO is a coined and arbitrary word possessing the highest degree of inherent distinctiveness. Because the term has no generic or descriptive meaning, there was no plausible or innocent justification for a third party to adopt it as part of a corporate identity. The complete subsumption of the mark into "Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited" created a visual and structural identity that posed an undeniable risk of public confusion.
The Court analyzed the commercial reputation and historical usage of the mark, taking note of revenue figures, awards, international trademark registrations, and continuous presence in India dating back to 1983. Applying the provisions of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held that using an identical famous mark in a corporate name—even within digital marketing and online promotional channels—dilutes its distinctive character and misrepresents business association. The Court determined that the balance of convenience leaned heavily toward protecting the registered proprietor, as allowing unauthorized commercial use of a famous house mark would cause irreparable harm to its goodwill.
Final Decision of the Court:
The Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants, along with John Doe entities acting on their behalf, were restrained from using the trade name "Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited," the mark "NINTENDO," or any deceptively similar variation in connection with their services.
The Court directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requiring the plaintiff to serve complete paper books to the remaining defendants within two weeks. Additionally, the domain registrar was deleted from the array of parties following its confirmation regarding the domain status. The matter was made returnable for further proceedings on December 4, 2026.
Point of Law Settled:
This decision reaffirms that coined and arbitrary marks enjoying cross-border goodwill and prior statutory registrations receive robust protection against corporate name squatting and domain appropriation under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment establishes that incorporating a well-known, invented house mark into a company name or domain name—regardless of minor operational differences in specific service lines—amounts to trademark infringement and passing off by misrepresenting corporate origin and diluting brand equity.
Case Details:
Title of the Case: Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 748/2026 & I.A. 18520/2026
Neutral Citation: Not Available in Order Text
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Jyoti Singh
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .
Headnote of the Judgment:
Nintendo Co. Ltd. Vs. Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited & Ors., High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, CS(COMM) 748/2026 & I.A. 18520/2026, Order Dated July 29, 2026. Suit filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining trademark infringement and passing off. Plaintiff established prior statutory rights over coined mark NINTENDO registered since 1983. Defendants adopted identical corporate name Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited and domain nintendotec.in. Court held adoption dishonest, creating public confusion and dilution. Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Nintendo Co Ltd v Nintendo Info Tech, Delhi High Court Trademark Injunction, Nintendo Trademark Infringement, Corporate Name Squatting India, Section 29 Trade Marks Act 1999, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Coined Mark Protection India, Ex Parte Ad Interim Relief, Domain Name Infringement Law, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
Delhi High Court Restrains Nintendo Info Tech in Trademark Suit Nintendo Co Ltd Wins Ex-Parte Injunction Against Indian Corporate Squatter Protecting Coined Marks: Delhi High Court Orders Injunction in Nintendo Case Corporate Name vs Registered Trademark: Legal Insights from Delhi High Court Nintendo Trademark Dispute: Ex-Parte Interim Relief Granted by Delhi High Court Domain Squatting and Corporate Misrepresentation Under Indian Trademark Law How Delhi High Court Protects Globally Well-Known Marks Against Dilution Evaluating Deceptive Similarity in Coined House Marks: Nintendo Ruling Interim Injunction Guidelines Under Order 39 CPC in Commercial Suits Legal Protection of Video Game Brands in India: Nintendo Case Study
In Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo Info Tech Private Limited & Ors., decided on July 29, 2026 under Case Number CS(COMM) 748/2026 & I.A. 18520/2026 with Neutral Citation Not Available in Order Text, the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, comprising Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the unauthorized use of the coined mark NINTENDO in corporate and domain names.
