Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia on October 10 granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd., restraining a Delhi-based trader from manufacturing and selling counterfeit “Hero Genuine Oil” bottles that infringed the company’s registered trademarks and industrial designs. The Court observed that the bottles in question were identical in appearance and labelling to those bearing the “HERO” mark, resulting in a clear likelihood of consumer confusion. Noting a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, the Court directed that the defendant be restrained from producing or distributing the counterfeit goods and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect and seize infringing materials from the trader’s premises to ensure compliance with the injunction.

The matter concerns a suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking urgent relief against the defendant for alleged infringement of registered trademarks and registered bottle designs associated with engine oil and automotive lubricants. The plaintiffs sought exemption from advance service, exemption from filing court fees at the time of institution, and exemption from pre-institution mediation, all of which were allowed by the Court in view of urgency.

Also Read: MV Act | Supreme Court Quashes MP High Court Order; Private Bus Operators Cannot Ply On Inter-State Routes Overlapping Notified State Transport Routes

The plaintiffs asserted ownership over the registered trademark “HERO” and associated device marks, as well as the registered bottle designs bearing Design Nos. 311300 and 311301. They contended that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing and selling engine oil bottles that were identical and fraudulent imitations of their registered designs and were also using marks identical to the plaintiffs’ trademarks. According to the plaintiffs, an investigator learned of large-scale manufacture and sale of counterfeit products at the defendant’s premises, and photographs were placed on record showing the alleged counterfeit goods. They alleged that the defendant’s conduct was intended to mislead consumers into believing that the counterfeit products originated from the plaintiffs, thereby causing confusion and damaging their goodwill.

The plaintiffs submitted that the Subject Marks enjoyed extensive reputation and that the Suit Designs had become uniquely associated with their products. The contention was that the defendant’s actions constituted infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Designs Act, 2000, and passing off under common law. They further submitted that the continued sale of counterfeit automotive lubricants could harm public trust due to lack of quality assurance.

The suit invoked provisions under the CPC for interim injunctions and for appointment of a Local Commissioner. The plaintiffs requested seizure of counterfeit goods and associated materials, inspection of accounts, and measures to prevent further manufacture and sale of the impugned products. The Court considered the pleadings, documents, and submissions within this framework.

The Court recorded that “the material placed on record demonstrates the Plaintiffs’ extensive reputation and goodwill in respect of the Subject Marks.” It further noted that the documents and photographs submitted “show that the Defendant has been manufacturing and selling Counterfeit Products bearing marks and designs identical to the Subject Marks and the Suit Designs respectively.” The Court stated that such adoption and use was “clearly calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the Counterfeit Products originate from, or are associated with the Plaintiffs.”.

Regarding the nature of the goods, the Court observed that engine oil and automotive lubricants are purchased by a wide range of consumers based on brand reputation. It stated that “the circulation of Counterfeit Products without any quality assurances is bound to erode consumer trust and confidence in the Plaintiffs’ products and tarnish the reputation built over decades of trade, both in India and internationally.”

The Court stated that after considering the pleadings and submissions, “a prima facie case is made out.” It recorded that the acts attributed to the defendant were “such as to cause deception and confusion in the course of trade and amount to passing off as well as infringement of the Plaintiffs’ proprietary rights.” It observed that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs and that failure to restrain the defendant would result in “irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.”

Addressing the request for appointment of a Local Commissioner, the Court stated that such appointment was necessary “to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with.” It recorded the scope of the commissioner’s authority, including power to inspect the defendant’s premises, seize counterfeit goods, seize raw materials, obtain account books, break open locks with police assistance, and take photographs and videos during execution.

The Court recorded that counterfeit products, along with associated material such as pamphlets and packaging bearing the plaintiffs’ marks, were to be inventoried and released on superdari after valuation. It also recorded that the commissioner must ensure “that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendant, except for the purposes of the execution of the Commission,” and that proceedings were to be carried out peacefully.

The observations conclude with directions relating to collection of the certified copy of the order, execution timelines, and compliance requirements. All observations were based solely on the material presented before the Court.

The Court directed that “till the next date of hearing” the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf “are restrained from manufacturing, trading, supplying, selling, marketing, in any manner including online sale or dealing in any other way, any goods and/or any other products under the Subject Marks ‘HERO’/ ‘ ’ / ‘ ’ / ‘ ’ or any other mark / logo / labels which are identical and similar thereto resulting in infringement of the Subject Marks and passing off the Counterfeit Products as those of the Plaintiffs.”

“The defendant and all persons acting on its behalf are restrained from manufacturing, promoting, marketing, selling in any manner including on online platforms bottles that are in any manner identical or similar to the Suit Designs namely Design Nos. 311300 and 311301 resulting in infringement of the Suit Designs. “Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing. The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be done within two weeks.”

The Court appointed a Local Commissioner and recorded the detailed mandate, including that the Local Commissioner “shall visit the premises of the Defendant… to inspect and seize any Counterfeit Products, fully or semi-manufactured Counterfeit Products of the Defendant.” The Local Commissioner was authorised to visit any additional premises if “knowledge is acquired of any other premises”. The Commissioner “shall also inspect and seize any product materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks… display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked Counterfeit Products or any other documents, wrapper etc.”

“The learned Local Commissioner shall obtain the details as to since when Counterfeit Products are being used by the Defendant and obtain copies of the accounts if the same is found to be sold in market.” He was further instructed “to obtain accounts including ledgers, stock registers, invoice books, receipt books, cash books, purchase and sale records and any other books of record or commercial transactions kept at the premises of the Defendant, and take photocopy and/or record of all such transactions that pertain to Counterfeit Products.”

After inventory preparation, the seized material “shall be released to the Defendant on superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.” The Commissioner “is also permitted to break open the locks, with police help” and that the SHO “shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the Commission.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court | JNU’s Cross-Constituency Voting Rule in Internal Committee Elections Sustained | No Proof of Illegality or Unfair Conduct in Student Polls

The Commissioner “is permitted to take photographs and record videos of the proceedings of the Commission,” and two representatives of the plaintiffs may accompany him. The Commissioner must ensure “there is no disruption to the business of the Defendant, except for the purposes of the execution of the Commission.”

The Commissioner “shall carry the certified copy of this Order… and a copy of the same shall be served upon the Defendant… at the time of the execution of the Commission. The Commissioner’s fee “is fixed at ₹1,00,000/-… excluding out of pocket expenses,” to be paid in advance by the plaintiffs. “The Commission shall be executed on 17.10.2025, and the report… shall be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.”

“Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within two weeks after the execution of the Commission.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Madhav Anand, Mr. Krtin Bhasin, Mr. Yashveer Singh & Mr. Udit Sharma, Advocates.

Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs. Saklin Alias Prince
Neutral Citation: NA
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1095/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia