Tesla Inc. Vs. Tesla Power India Private Limited

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of case

Tesla Inc., a global leader in electric vehicles and energy solutions, filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction to stop the use of marks like "TESLA POWER" and "TESLA POWER USA". The court granted an interim injunction in favour of Tesla Inc., finding a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off due to the deceptive similarity of the defendants' marks, which prominently feature "TESLA" – the plaintiff's registered and well-known mark – for allied goods like batteries and inverters. The decision underscores protection for prior users with trans-border reputation, even without local sales, emphasizing that adding descriptive words like "POWER" or "USA" does not distinguish the marks, leading to likely confusion among consumers.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Factual Background

Tesla Inc. adopted the "TESLA" mark in 2003 and began using it commercially from July 2006 for electric vehicles, batteries, solar products, and related services. The company has registrations in India, including word mark "TESLA" under No. 2689306 in Classes 12 and 37 (for automobiles and structural parts, maintenance services), and device marks in Class 9 covering inverters and solar equipment. It generated massive revenues, reaching $98.6 billion in 2023, with its website www.tesla.com attracting millions of Indian visitors annually, building trans-border reputation in India since 2010 through imports and media coverage. Tesla Power India and its associates started using "TESLA POWER USA" and similar marks from 2020 for lead-acid batteries, inverters, UPS, and battery services in Class 9, filing applications like No. 4855017. Despite no US operations, they used "USA" and advertised electric vehicles, leading to media confusion (e.g., Business Standard articles mistaking them for Tesla Inc.) and consumer complaints where people thought they were Tesla's subsidiary.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Procedural Detail

Tesla Inc. sent a cease-and-desist notice on 18.04.2022 after discovering the use, followed by exchanges until March 2023, where defendants refused to stop. The suit CS(COMM) 353/2024 was filed on 24.03.2024 with I.A. 9755/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief. On 02.05.2024, defendant No. 3 undertook not to use the marks for EVs or the word "TESLA", recorded by court, but allegedly violated it by selling scooters and advertising. Arguments concluded on 04.09.2025; judgment reserved and delivered on 24.11.2025. The application was allowed, enforcing the undertaking till suit disposal, extending it to batteries, inverters, UPS for automobiles, and listing for pleadings on 15.01.2026.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Core Dispute

The main fight was whether defendants' "TESLA POWER" and "TESLA POWER USA" infringe plaintiff's "TESLA" marks and pass off their batteries/inverters as connected to Tesla Inc. Plaintiff claimed identical dominant "TESLA" element for cognate goods (batteries as auto parts under Class 12, inverters under Class 9), prior use since 2003, goodwill via revenues/media, actual confusion (media errors, govt notices, consumer approaches), and dishonest adoption post-knowledge (defendants' TM reply citing plaintiff's mark in 2021). Defendants argued honest inspiration from Nikola Tesla, prior third-party "TESLA" uses (e.g., NVIDIA No. 1680147), different goods (lead-acid vs. lithium/solar), no plaintiff sales in India, delay, and crowded field allowing coexistence.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning

The court explained trademarks show source and origin, needing distinctiveness to avoid confusion. On infringement under Sections 28, 29, 31 Trade Marks Act 1999, plaintiff's registrations (e.g., No. 2689306 Class 12/37 for autos/parts; Class 9 devices for inverters) are prima facie valid; batteries are "structural parts" for EVs (more essential than in ICE vehicles), inverters directly overlap, making goods allied/cognate despite Class 9 focus. Defendants' marks subsume "TESLA" entirely; "POWER/USA" descriptive, failing dominant feature test. Court cited Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 1; N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn., (1996) 5 SCC 714 for trans-border reputation protecting marks pre-local use. Goodwill proven via $98.6bn revenue, Indian website traffic (e.g., 4.47mn visits 2021), media, CEO fame – implausible defendants unaware. Actual confusion shown (Business Standard 22.12.2021 photo mix-up; Zee News/Economic Times errors; charger queries to Tesla India Motors). Defendants' knowledge from TM objection (Feb 2021, App. 4855802 citing plaintiff's No. 3702930); US/Turkey rejections; contradictory adoption stories (acronym vs. Nikola Tesla); post-undertaking EV ads dishonest. Delay no bar per Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, 2004 SCC OnLine SC 106; Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 34 (dishonest adoption). Third-party "TESLA" (e.g., NVIDIA 1680147 Class 9 computers, post-2003) irrelevant – no battery/EV use in India; plaintiff need not sue all, per Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., MANU/SC/0115/1959; National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., MANU/SC/0369/1970. Approbate/reprobate barred defendants (sought registration yet claimed common), citing Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R.K. Dhawan, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27; Mohd. Shakir v. Gopal Traders, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2571; Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Procter & Gamble Mfg. (Tianjin) Co. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2968; PEPS Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Kurlon Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3275. Under Armour Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion Retail Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2269 clarified replies to exam reports irrelevant absent direct citation. Initial interest confusion per Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784 suffices. Passing off prima facie via goodwill, misrepresentation, damage. Triple identity (marks/goods/channels); balance convenience with plaintiff; irreparable harm from confusion/fraud complaints. Defendants' cases (Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco, 1997 SCC 201; Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Coop. Milk Producers Fedn. Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 183) inapplicable – no monopoly claim over class, but specific overlaps. Triple identity, prior rights, dishonest use warranted injunction enforcing 02.05.2024 undertaking comprehensively.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Decision

The application I.A. 9755/2024 allowed; defendants bound by 02.05.2024 undertaking not to manufacture/market EVs under impugned marks/trade names including "TESLA", no "TESLA" word/device use, no EV promotions – extended to all advertising/sales/services/dealing in lead-acid batteries for automobiles, inverters, UPS (including online/e-commerce). Till suit disposal; pleadings before Joint Registrar 15.01.2026.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Concluding Note

This ruling reinforces robust protection for well-known marks like "TESLA" against deceptively similar uses in cognate fields, prioritizing consumer protection from confusion over late entrants' expansions. It balances equity by permitting limited honest concurrent use elsewhere but curbs riding on reputation, setting precedent for trans-border rights in India's evolving EV/battery market amid global brands' entry.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Case Title: Tesla Inc. Vs. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Order date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 353/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10367
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas KariaTesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

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

Suggested 5 Suitable Titles for this legal analytical article:

1. Guarding the Electric Frontier: Delhi High Court Shields Tesla's Mark from Power Play Infringement

2. Triple Identity Triumph: Analysing Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power on Cognate Goods and Trans-Border Reputation

3. From Nikola to EVs: Decoding Dishonest Adoption in the Tesla Trademark Battle

4. Batteries Not Included: Why Descriptive Suffixes Fail Against Well-Known Marks in CS(COMM) 353/2024

5. Injunction Over Inspiration: Prioritising Confusion Prevention in Tesla's Delhi Victory

=======

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction to Tesla Inc. Against Tesla Power India in Trademark Infringement Suit

New Delhi, November 24, 2025: In Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors. (CS(COMM) 353/2024, Neutral Citation 2025:DHC:10367), the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, allowed I.A. 9755/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, granting Tesla Inc. an interim injunction against the defendants' use of marks like "TESLA POWER" and "TESLA POWER USA".

Tesla Inc., the global electric vehicle giant with "TESLA" registrations in India since 2013 (e.g., No. 2689306 in Classes 12/37 for autos/parts), argued infringement and passing off for defendants' battery/inverter sales in Class 9, claiming deceptive similarity, trans-border reputation via massive revenues ($98.6bn in 2023), Indian website traffic, and actual confusion in media/govt notices. Defendants countered with honest adoption inspired by Nikola Tesla, third-party uses, dissimilar goods (lead-acid vs. lithium/solar), no local sales by plaintiff, and delay.

The court found prima facie infringement: batteries as EV "structural parts" (Class 12 overlap), inverters direct hit (Class 9); "TESLA" dominant, "POWER/USA" descriptive; dishonest adoption post-2021 TM knowledge; confusion likely in cognate EV/battery space. Citing Toyota Jidosha (2018) 2 SCC 1 for trans-border rights, Midas Hygiene (2004 SCC OnLine SC 106) rejecting delay bar, and Under Armour (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2269) on replies, it enforced defendants' 02.05.2024 no-EV undertaking till suit disposal, extending to auto batteries/inverters/UPS sales/services/advertising, including online.Tesla-Inc-Vs-Tesla-Power-India-Private-Limited.pdf​

Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

========

The Coca-Cola Company Vs Raj Trade Link

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case

This case was heard in the High Court of Delhi and concerns a legal dispute between The Coca-Cola Company, its authorized bottler, and M/s Raj Trade Links regarding the handling and production of documents in a trademark and commercial litigation context. The matter especially involved an application by the defendant for the belated filing of Income Tax Returns and other documents claimed to be necessary for their defense. The core issue was whether, under the Commercial Courts Act regime, a litigant can file documents long after the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, and whether grounds such as the pandemic legitimately justified such delay. The Court ultimately refused the application, emphasizing the importance of timely procedural compliance to uphold speedy commercial litigation.​

Factual Background

The Coca-Cola Company, as Plaintiff No. 1, operates in the business of manufacturing and selling beverage concentrates and related products, while Plaintiff No. 2 is its authorized Indian bottler. Together, they distribute beverages in specified containers, which are to be recycled and returned for refilling. Defendant No. 2, operating as a sole proprietorship under the name Raj Trade Links, collected empty bottles from the market. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant hoarded large stocks of Coca-Cola bottles, creating a market shortage and possibly aiding the supply of used bottles for refilling with spurious beverages. This prompted the plaintiffs to file a lawsuit seeking an injunction, damages, and delivery-up for trademark infringement and unfair competition. During litigation, the defendant sought to file additional evidence, specifically their Income Tax Returns for 2007-08 to 2011-12, which they argued were necessary to prove alleged damages and claims in their counterclaim.​

Procedural Detail

The suit was initially instituted in 2007, and in 2018 it was converted into a commercial suit. Defendant No. 2’s written statement was taken on record in September 2007, and the litigation involved multiple directions regarding filing of evidence by both sides, with several delays and adjournments mainly on the part of the defendants. Plaintiffs closed their evidence in March 2018 after several years of proceedings. Defendant No. 2 was repeatedly granted opportunities but further delayed, finally seeking to submit the disputed additional documents as late as May 2024. Plaintiffs objected to the application, arguing that under the amended Commercial Courts Act and Civil Procedure Code, such belated filings should not be allowed except for substantial and justified reasons, especially considering the impact on expeditious justice.​

Core Dispute

The primary issue was whether Defendant No. 2 should be permitted to file "additional documents" (specifically income tax records from 2007-2012) at a very late stage in the proceedings, when the evidence of the plaintiffs had already closed years prior. The defendant attributed their delay to difficulties caused by the pandemic, among other reasons. Plaintiffs countered that allowing the documents would unfairly prejudice their case, introduce new facts not previously pleaded, and was not adequately justified under the rules designed for expeditious disposal of commercial disputes.​

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court

The Court analyzed various provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, highlighting the need for all parties to disclose documents in their possession at the time of filing their pleadings unless there is good cause for later submission. The Court discussed the legal framework governing document production, including Orders XI, VIII, and XVIII of the CPC and corresponding sections of the Commercial Courts Act, all of which underline the principles of fairness and early disclosure.

Citing several precedents (such as Scindia Potteries Services P. Ltd. v. J.K. Jain, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5296; Societe DES Produits Nestle S.A. v. Essar Industries, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4279; and Ramanand v. Delhi Development Authority, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4925), the judgment reasoned that litigants—especially commercial entities—are expected to act diligently. The Court found that ample opportunities were given to Defendant No. 2, who nonetheless did not disclose the necessary documents until many years later, well after the closure of the plaintiffs’ evidence.

The Court also analyzed the explanation regarding the pandemic and held that since the documents in question pre-dated the pandemic, the justification offered by Defendant No. 2 did not hold. Allowing such a filing would defeat the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, which is aimed at preventing delay and expediting commercial litigation. The legal discussion referenced law, procedure, specific case law, and the objects and reasons of the statute itself.

Decision

The Court decided that no valid reason existed for permitting such belated filing of documents. The defendant failed to show reasonable cause or diligence. Allowing the request would compromise the orderly conduct of proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act and prejudice the plaintiffs, who had already closed their evidence. Thus, the Court dismissed Defendant No. 2’s application for taking the additional documents on record. A consequential application for summoning witnesses to prove those additional documents was also dismissed as infructuous.​

Concluding Note

This case underscores the judiciary’s approach towards strict procedural compliance in commercial disputes and highlights that delay, especially in document production, will not be condoned unless exceptional and well-justified reasons exist. The judgment reaffirms the commitment of commercial courts to expedite proceedings and discourages casual or negligent conduct on the part of parties involved.

Case Title: The Coca-Cola Company & Anr. v. M/s Raj Trade Links & Anr.
Order Date: November 24, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 439/2018, CC 970/2007
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5694
Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

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

Suggestions for Suitable Titles:

1. Timeliness and Diligence in Commercial Litigation: Lessons from The Coca-Cola Company vs. Raj Trade Links

2. The Imperative of Procedural Rigor in Trademark Disputes under the Commercial Courts Act

3. Document Production and Delay: Judicial Trends in Indian Commercial Law

4. Ensuring Swift Justice in Commercial Suits: An Analytical Perspective

5. The Balance between Procedural Fairness and Expedition: Recent Directions from the Delhi High Court

======

Delhi High Court Bars Late Document Filing in Decade-Old Coca-Cola Bottle Hoarding Case

New Delhi, November 24, 2025: The High Court of Delhi, in The Coca-Cola Company & Anr. Vs. M/s Raj Trade Links & Anr. (CS(COMM) 439/2018, CC 970/2007), presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, rejected Defendant No. 2's bid to file Income Tax Returns (2007-2012) as additional evidence in this trademark infringement suit.​

Plaintiffs accused the defendants of hoarding empty Coca-Cola bottles, causing shortages and risking spurious refills, after the suit originated in 2007 and became commercial in 2018. Defendant No. 2 claimed pandemic delays prevented earlier access via their chartered accountant to support counterclaim damages.​

Applying CPC Order XI Rule 10 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, Justice Karia highlighted the defendant's chronic delays, multiple unutilized opportunities post-plaintiffs' 2018 evidence closure, and weak justifications predating COVID. Citing Scindia Potteries (2012 SCC OnLine Del 5296) and Nestle v. Essar (2016 SCC OnLine Del 4279), the court prioritized expeditious trials, dismissing the application and a linked witness summons plea. Evidence recording set for January 12, 2026.​

Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

======

Sunil Niranjan Shah Vs. Vijay Bahadur

BRIEF INTRODUCTORY HEAD NOTE SUMMARY OF CASE AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case before the High Court of Delhi is a trademark and copyright dispute in the soap and detergent business. The plaintiff, a businessman named Sunil Niranjan Shah, claimed that his brand “COW BRAND” and its Hindi versions “GAAY CHHAP” and “GAAY CHHAP (COW BRAND)” have been used continuously in India since 1975. According to him, his previous owner (called predecessor in law) invented these names first and used them for detergent soaps, detergent cakes, and washing powder. In 2023, the previous owner transferred all rights in these brand names to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also applied for registration before the Trade Mark Registry to protect these names under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The plaintiff also said that most of his earnings – around 70% of his business revenue – come from products under these brand names. His total sales in the financial year 2024–2025 were ₹39,66,43,930, and advertising spend was ₹17,25,710. He also registered copyright in one of his cow-based artistic labels in 2024 under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Vijay Bahadur, who is the father of another person already facing the plaintiff in a similar commercial dispute, filed applications for marks like “GOPAL GAI CHHAP” and the very same “COW BRAND” but claimed they were used since 1973. The plaintiff also said that the defendant copied the plaintiff’s tagline – “Hathon ki Raksha Chakachaundh Shakti Kapdo ki Suraksha” – on his cow label, making it look very similar and likely to confuse ordinary buyers.

The plaintiff admitted that the defendant might not have sold products actually under the disputed mark yet, but his agents were preparing to promote and take orders using the similar label, which itself, according to law, may create a legal reason to sue.

PROCEDURAL DETAILS

The lawsuit was filed as a commercial suit in 2025, numbered CS(COMM) 669/2025. The plaintiff filed an interim relief application being I.A. 15795/2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asking the court to immediately stop infringement, passing off (fraudulent selling by copying), to seize/deliver up illegal goods/labels, submit accounts (rendition of accounts), and compensate losses. The early hearings started in July 2025, where the defendant’s personal attendance was initially asked, then given exemption due to poor health, and his son attended. The suit was referred to special mediation drive but none from plaintiff appeared before the Joint Registrar, hence it returned to the judge for decision on injunction.

CORE DISPUTE

The legal dispute revolves around who used the cow-based mark first and whether the defendant has the right to oppose the plaintiff’s registrations or use similar cow marks. Under Indian trademark law, the first person to invent and use a brand in business gets better rights than even a registered owner. This principle is found under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Also, a trademark cannot be described as “common in trade”, “descriptive”, or “generic” by a party who itself has applied for its registration. This rule prevents taking opposite arguments at different times, which the law calls “approbate and reprobate” – meaning a person cannot accept something in one place and reject it in another place.

The defendant argued that the Delhi High Court cannot hear this matter because neither party lives in Delhi. The defendant works only in districts like Basti, Gorakhpur, etc., Uttar Pradesh, and plaintiff is from Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The defendant alleged forgery in plaintiff’s copyright papers and suppression of facts, and also accused the plaintiff of forum shopping.

COURT’S DETAILED REASONING, DISCUSSION AND COMPLETE CITATIONS

The Hon’ble Court explained the question of territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rules 10 and 11, CPC, which require the court to see only the statements (averments) of the plaintiff at face value, which is legally called “on demurrer”. The court relied on several Delhi precedents such as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Reshma Collection, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2031; LT Foods Limited v. Heritage Foods (India) Limited, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2918; Bhatia Industries v. Pandey Industries, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 238; Sonal Kanodia v. Shri Ram Gupta, FAO(COMM) 43/2023. These cases state that for deciding jurisdiction at interim stage, what plaintiff alleges is assumed correct without deep inquiry at that moment.

The court applied an internet jurisdiction test from Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, where it was held that jurisdiction exists if a defendant entered an interactive website intending to target customers there, which is “purposeful availment”. The defendant had a listing on IndiaMart – an interactive marketplace site available in Delhi – showing he was offering goods there. Hence Delhi buyers could be targeted, fulfilling “purposeful availment” test.

The court examined the defendant’s invoice proofs and said they appear doubtful because one invoice shows 1972, which is even earlier than his 1973 claim and another invoice uses mixed Hindi–English date २२/५/2007, raising suspicion. The court relied on Gandhi Scientific Co. v. Gulshan Kumar, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 820 and Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing v. Sita Chawal Udyog Mill, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2933, where injunction was allowed because defendant’s documents appeared suspicious and not trustworthy.

The court further relied on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221, but clarified that these judgments do not help the defendant because the defendant failed to prove any actual suppression by plaintiff at this moment.

The court relied heavily on Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., 1977 SCC OnLine Del 50, the leading Delhi High Court authority holding that prior user rights are stronger than registration rights. It also cited Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27 and Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Jiva Institute, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1758 which say that once a party itself applied for a trademark, it cannot later claim it is merely descriptive or common.

The court finally held that the plaintiff has made a strong prima facie case because: the plaintiff showed continuous use since 1975; plaintiff owns registered cow marks including GAAY CHHAP; defendant failed to prove older honest use; defendant’s conduct appears dishonest because he, his son, and associates repeatedly applied for deceptively similar cow-based marks; taglines and labels are copied causing possibility of confusion. The court applied well known 3 tests for injunction: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, holding all 3 tests favour the plaintiff because brand value, market confusion risk, and goodwill must be protected urgently.

DECISION

The court allowed the application, restrained the defendant, his partners, agents, heirs, distributors, and all persons working for him from using “COW BRAND”, “GOPAL GAI CHHAP” or any mark identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s cow marks, in detergent soaps, detergent cakes, washing powder etc., under Class 3, and also stopped him from copying the artistic cow labels and copied slogan, pending final trial.

CONCLUDING NOTE

This judgment reinforces one basic principle that is the backbone of trademark law in India – the first honest user gets better legal protection even if the other side tries to register first or oppose registration. It also tells sellers using marketplace websites that if their listings are interactive and target Delhi buyers, Delhi courts can step in. The decision gives comfort to law students and junior lawyers that suspicious documents, copied slogans, and repeated dishonest filings can tilt equity quickly. The court protected business goodwill, market honesty, and consumer trust without complicated technical discussion, making the decision aligned with real-world impact.

CONCLUDING NOTE SUMMARY FOR GENERAL READERS

In plain words, the court said: If you invented and sold under a name first, your rights win. If someone copies your design and slogan and cannot prove older honest business, the court can stop them right away to save your reputation and money, till the lawsuit ends.

SUITABLE TITLES SUGGESTED FOR PUBLICATION

“Prior Use Wins Over Registration: Protecting Common-Man Trust in the Delhi Cow Brand Detergent Dispute”
“Internet Listings and Delhi Court Jurisdiction: A Simple Explanation Through the Cow Brand Case”
“Equity, Honesty and First Adoption: Understanding Delhi High Court’s Reasoning in Trademark Injunction”
“Can a Seller Call a Mark ‘Common’ After Applying for its Registration? Lessons from the Cow Brand Case”
“Safeguarding Goodwill and Consumer Confidence: A Student-Friendly Analysis of the Delhi Trademark Order”

Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah Vs. Vijay Bahadur
Order Date: 24/11/2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 669/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:669
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

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

======

Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah Vs. Vijay Bahadur
Order Date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 669/2025
Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

In a significant order on trademark protection, the High Court of Delhi, on 24 November 2025, held that it had territorial jurisdiction to hear a commercial intellectual property suit even when neither party resided in Delhi, since the defendant was operating through an interactive listing on IndiaMART that is accessible to Delhi consumers. The court passed an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restraining the defendant, Vijay Bahadur and those acting for him, from using the marks ‘GOPAL GAI CHHAP’, ‘COW BRAND’, or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered and prior-used marks including ‘COW BRAND’, ‘GAAY CHHAP’, and ‘GAAY CHHAP (COW BRAND)’ in respect of detergent soaps, detergent cakes, and detergent washing powder under Class 3. The court also restrained the defendant from copying or using labels/artistic works similar to the plaintiff’s copyrighted cow-device label (Copyright Registration No. A-153025/2024) and from reproducing the plaintiff’s slogan ‘Hathon ki Raksha Chakachaundh Shakti Kapdo ki Suraksha’.

The court reiterated the settled principle that trademark rights of a prior user enjoy superiority even over prior registrants and that a defendant who himself seeks trademark registration cannot later claim that the mark is descriptive or common to trade, as that would amount to taking contradictory stands (approbate and reprobate). The order was passed after the court found the defendant’s invoice-based evidence of alleged use since 1973 to be doubtful and unsupported by any independent or public documents prior to April 2025. The plaintiff was held to have established a strong prima facie case of long use, acquired goodwill, and likelihood of consumer confusion.

Thus, balancing equity and market honesty, the High Court granted protection to the plaintiff’s brand identity, restrained infringement and passing off, and allowed the injunction application, pending the final trial.

Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi.

=====