Authored By Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court, on December 18, 2024, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the matter of Inter IKEA Systems BV vs. IKey Home Studio LLP and Anr. IKEA, a globally recognized entity and the proprietor of the trademark “IKEA,” initiated legal proceedings alleging infringement, passing off, and unauthorized use of its trademark by IKEY. The dispute arose from IKEY's adoption and use of the mark “IKEY,” both as an independent mark and in conjunction with the words “Home Studio,” for goods identical and allied to those of IKEA. IKEA contended that such actions not only infringed its registered trademark but also sought to unlawfully exploit the goodwill and reputation built over decades.

IKEA’s submissions before the Court elaborated on the origins and recognition of the “IKEA” trademark, first adopted in 1943. It demonstrated that the mark is registered and well-known across multiple jurisdictions, including India, and is synonymous with a wide range of home furnishings, kitchen appliances, and interior solutions. IKEA highlighted the uniqueness of the trademark, describing it as a “coined word” with no prior existence, ensuring its strong association with the brand. It was further submitted that the trademark enjoys statutory protection and has been declared well-known in several jurisdictions, including the EU, China, and Vietnam, as well as by the WIPO Arbitration and Conciliation Centre. IKEA argued that the mark “IKEA” has acquired secondary meaning, making it exclusively identifiable with its goods and services.

The cause of action in the suit arose when IKEA, during routine market surveillance, discovered that IKEY had filed multiple trademark applications for “IKEY” in various classes covering goods such as tiles, sanitary wares, plumbing materials, and hardware. Subsequent investigations revealed that IKEY was not only using the “IKEY” mark prominently at its showroom but also operating an online business under the domain name ikeyllp.com. IKEA deputed an investigator who visited the premises of IKEY, a three-story showroom where the mark “IKEY” was displayed prominently, and observed numerous products labeled under the “IKEY” brand. According to IKEA, these actions were clearly calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the products were associated with or endorsed by IKEA.

IKEA argued, “The defendants’ adoption of the mark ‘IKEY’ is not a coincidence but a deliberate attempt to trade upon the reputation and goodwill of IKEA. The similarity between the marks is such that an unwary consumer is likely to assume an association between the two.” It was further submitted that the website of IKEY explicitly stated that they showcased products from renowned brands, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of consumer confusion.

The Court, after considering the submissions and evidence, observed that IKEA had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The Court noted that the unauthorized use of the mark “IKEY,” in a manner deceptively similar to “IKEA,” amounted to both trademark infringement and passing off. It remarked, “The plaintiff has demonstrated that the adoption of the impugned mark by the defendants is neither bona fide nor honest but an attempt to ride on the coattails of the plaintiff’s well-established reputation.”

The Court further observed that the irreparable harm likely to be caused to IKEA if IKEY were allowed to continue using the impugned mark. It stated, “The balance of convenience lies overwhelmingly in favor of the plaintiff. The continued use of the mark ‘IKEY’ by the defendants will not only dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s trademark but also lead to irreparable damage to its goodwill and reputation.”

In its order, the Court restrained IKEY, its partners, legal heirs, and all others acting in concert with them from using the marks “IKEY,” “IKEY Home Studio,” or any other deceptively similar variant in any manner, including selling, advertising, or offering goods or services under the said mark. The Court further directed the suspension of the domain name ikeyllp.com during the pendency of the suit and required IKEY to disclose the registrant details of the domain.

IKEA also brought to the Court’s attention that despite advance service of the plaint, IKEY failed to appear. Consequently, the Court proceeded ex parte and scheduled the matter for further hearing on May 9, 2025. IKEA was represented by Advocates  Shwetasree Majumder, Tanya Varma, Vardaan Anand, and Ruchika Yadav.

IKEA concluded its arguments by asserting, “The adoption of the mark ‘IKEY’ is a blatant infringement of our statutory and common law rights. The defendants’ actions are mala fide and an egregious attempt to profit from the hard-earned goodwill and reputation of the IKEA brand.”

Case Title: Inter IKEA Systems BV vs. IKey Home Studio LLP and Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1143/2024
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

[Read/Download order]