Delhi High Court Bars Use Of Destiny Marks By EV Firms | “Prima Facie Case Made Out – Irreparable Injury To Hero Motocorp”
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’. The court found that the plaintiff, being the prior and registered proprietor of the subject marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, had established a prima facie case of infringement. The court directed that the defendants, their business associates, officers, and anyone acting on their behalf, are restrained from manufacturing, advertising, promoting, and selling products bearing the impugned marks in relation to goods falling under Classes 12 and 37. The court held that irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendants were permitted to continue with such use and accordingly granted interim relief.
The matter arises from a commercial dispute concerning trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff is engaged in designing and developing motorcycles and scooters for customers across the world. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, registered under Classes 12 and 37. The plaintiff has been using the mark ‘DESTINI’ commercially in the course of trade since 2018. The plaintiff has not permitted or licensed the use of these marks to any third party.
According to the plaintiff, the defendants, trading under the names ‘Urban e-bikes’ and ‘Galaxy EV’, were found manufacturing, marketing, selling, and promoting electric scooters under the impugned marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, under the name ‘Urban e-bikes,’ were allegedly manufacturing and marketing the scooters. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, under the name ‘Galaxy EV,’ were allegedly distributing and promoting the scooters bearing the impugned marks. The plaintiff asserted that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had a commercial relationship with Defendant Nos. 5 and 6.
The plaintiff became aware of the alleged infringing activities following a field investigation. Subsequently, a cease-and-desist notice dated 17.06.2025 was sent to certain defendants, calling upon them to cease using the impugned marks or any deceptively similar mark. While Defendant No. 2 did not respond, Defendant No. 5, by email dated 03.07.2025, admitted that it was a dealer of Defendant No. 1 and was sourcing electric scooters bearing the impugned mark ‘DESTINY’ from Defendant No. 1.
The plaintiff contended that the impugned marks are structurally, phonetically, and visually identical or deceptively similar to the subject marks. It was argued that any spoken or verbal use of the impugned marks would misrepresent the origin of the products, thereby causing confusion in the minds of the consumers. The plaintiff submitted that the adoption and use of the impugned marks by the defendants was mala fide, aimed at misappropriating the goodwill and reputation of the subject marks.
The plaintiff further alleged that certain defendants had also used the mark ‘HERO,’ which could perpetuate misrepresentation. The plaintiff argued that such conduct by the defendants would lead to consumer confusion, irreparable loss of goodwill, and erosion of the distinctiveness associated with the plaintiff’s marks. It was submitted that the dilution of distinctiveness, erosion of consumer trust, and loss of exclusivity could not be adequately compensated monetarily.
The plaintiff therefore prayed for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the impugned marks in relation to their products.
Justice Tejas Karia, after considering the submissions, recorded the following observations: “Plaintiff is the prior and registered proprietor of the Marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ (‘Subject Marks’) under Classes 12 and 37. The Plaintiff has commercially used the Mark ‘DESTINI’ in the course of trade since the year 2018 and has not permitted or licensed the use of the Subject Marks in any manner.”
“Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, trading under the name and style ‘Urban e-bikes,’ are engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling electric scooters bearing the Marks ‘DESTINY’ and ‘DESTINY+’. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, trading under the name and style ‘Galaxy EV’ are engaged in the business of selling, distributing and promoting scooters bearing the Marks ‘DESTINY’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have a commercial relationship with Defendant Nos. 5 and 6.”
“The Impugned Marks are structurally, phonetically and visually identical and / or deceptively similar to the Subject Marks. Considering the phonetic similarity between the Subject Marks and the Impugned Marks, any spoken or verbal use of the Impugned Marks will misrepresent the origin of the products of the Defendants bearing the Impugned Marks (‘Impugned Products’).”
“The Defendants’ use and adoption of virtually identical and / or deceptively similar Subject Marks for identical goods is with the intention to ride upon the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the Plaintiff and to give an impression to consumers and the general public that the Defendants bear some association or collaboration with the Plaintiff and thereby foist the responsibility of the Defendants’ actions upon the Plaintiff.”
“The Defendants’ adoption and use of the Impugned Marks in relation to electric scooters, is mala fide and aimed at misappropriating the goodwill enjoyed by the Subject Marks for deriving commercial gains. Such use is detrimental to the distinctive character and reputation of the Subject Marks.”
“The adoption / use of the Impugned Marks by the Defendants, without any authority and / or license from the Plaintiff, constitutes infringement of the Subject Marks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’). The deceptive similarity between the Subject Marks and the Impugned Marks gives rise to presumption of likelihood of confusion on the part of the general public under Section 29(3) of the Act. The general public is likely to be deceived upon coming across the Impugned Marks being used in relation to the identical goods, i.e., two-wheelers.”
“Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are also using the Mark ‘HERO’ to perpetuate misrepresentation. Such misrepresentation will result in consumer confusion leading to irreparable loss of goodwill and market share of the Plaintiff leading to gradual erosion of the distinctiveness and exclusivity associated with the Plaintiff and the Subject Marks.”
“The products bearing the Subject Marks enjoy considerable demand and popularity and any use of the deceptively similar marks in relation to the products that do not meet the quality standards of the products bearing the Subject Marks, will harm the goodwill and reputation of the Subject Marks.”
“The dilution of the distinctiveness of the Subject Marks, erosion of consumer trust, and loss of brand exclusivity constitute injuries that cannot be quantified or compensated monetarily.”
“Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the Defendants are allowed to continue to use the Impugned Marks.”
Based on these observations, the court issued the following directives:
“Accordingly, the Defendants, their owners, partners, directors, business associates, officers, servants, employees, and anyone acting for and on their behalf, are restrained from selling, offering to sell, rendering, manufacturing, advertising, promoting through any offline and online means such as websites or social media platforms or in any other manner using the Impugned Marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’ or any other mark identical and / or deceptively similar to the Subject Marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ in relation to the identical or any allied or cognate goods or services falling under Classes 12 and 37, resulting in infringement of Subject Marks, passing off and unfair competition.”
The court directed the defendants to file replies within four weeks after service of pleadings and documents. The plaintiff was permitted to file rejoinders before the next date of hearing. The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was directed to be completed within two weeks. The matter was listed before the court on 24.11.2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Kanishk Kumar, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Mr. Priyansh Kohli, and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates.
Case Title: Hero Motocorp Limited v. Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 832/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
