VGP IPCO LLC Vs. Mr. Suresh Kumar

VGP IPCO LLC & Anr. Vs. Mr. Suresh Kumar Trading as Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors.

Case Title: VGP IPCO LLC & Anr. vs. Mr. Suresh Kumar Trading as Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors. Order Date: August 22, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 821/2024 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Hon'ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

---

Facts of the Case 📜

The Plaintiffs, VGP IPCO LLC and an Indian company, a 50:50 joint venture with Cummins India Ltd. , filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, who are a manufacturer, a wholesaler, and two retailers. The Plaintiffs, known for their

Valvoline lubricant brand, which was established in 1866 and operates in over 150 countries, have a strong brand identity and registered trademarks in India dating back to 1942. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were selling engine oils under the names

Vivoline / V Vivoline / VIVOLINE / VIVOLINE, which they claimed were deceptively similar to their own trademarks. The Defendants' products also allegedly used similar packaging and trade dress, which could confuse consumers.

---

The Dispute and Legal Arguments ⚖️

The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants were infringing on their registered trademarks and copyrights, as well as engaging in unfair competition. They pointed out that the Defendant No. 1 had previously filed a trademark application for

VIVOLINE but later filed a withdrawal application, which was still pending.

During the court proceedings, Defendants No. 1, 2, and 4 did not appear, so the court decided to proceed against them ex-parte (in their absence). Defendant No. 3, a reseller, agreed to a permanent injunction without contesting the case. The Plaintiffs requested a judgment based on the fact that the Defendants had not filed a written statement, which under

Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), means the court can pronounce judgment or make an appropriate order. The Plaintiffs also referenced a previous case where their trademark rights were upheld against a similar mark.

---

The Court's Decision 🧑‍⚖️

The court found merit in the Plaintiffs' claims. It noted that the Defendants had not contested the suit, and their failure to file a written statement meant the allegations in the plaint could be taken as admitted. The court concluded that the Defendants' marks were

deceptively, visually, and phonetically similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks, and their use of similar trade dress was likely to cause confusion.

Given the Plaintiffs' high sales volume in India, the court reasoned that the Defendants must have been aware of the Valvoline brand and that their adoption of the similar mark was not an honest one. The court granted a

decree of permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs, preventing the Defendants from using the infringing marks or any similar packaging. The interim injunction that had been in place since October 22, 2024, was made permanent. Additionally, the court directed the trademark registry to process the withdrawal application filed by Defendant No. 1 for the

VIVOLINE trademark.

---

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