Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora permanently restrained ZRH Lubes, a manufacturer of automotive lubricants, from using the marks CREMESTROL, ACTION, the MADMAXX ACTION logo, and associated packaging after holding them deceptively similar to the registered trademarks and trade dress of Castrol Limited. The order, delivered ex-parte on November 6, 2025, followed ZRH Lubes’ failure to file a written statement or continue participating in the proceedings despite service. The Court determined that the disputed marks and packaging created an unlawful resemblance to Castrol’s established branding, warranting a permanent injunction and prohibiting further use of the impugned material.

The suit was filed by Castrol Limited and related entities seeking a permanent injunction under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiffs stated that they had long used their CASTROL and ACTIV trademarks, device marks, and distinctive packaging and trade dress for their automotive lubricant products. They submitted that these marks had been registered in India for decades and were backed by substantial sales and advertising expenditure.

Also Read: “No Good Reason To Disbelieve” Parents’ Account: Supreme Court Upholds POCSO Conviction And Reduces Sentence To 6 Years

The defendants, consisting of the proprietor of Z.R.H. Lubes and the business entity itself, were engaged in the manufacture and distribution of automotive oils and lubricants. The plaintiffs discovered a trademark application by the defendants in November 2023, followed by additional filings for marks resembling the plaintiffs’ own. Opposition proceedings were initiated, and a cease-and-desist notice was issued in January 2024.

In August 2024, the plaintiffs procured samples of the defendants’ products under the marks CREMESTROL, ACTION, the MADMAXX ACTION logo, and packaging alleged to be deceptively similar to their branding. They asserted that the defendants had no authorised relationship with them and that the impugned products created a likelihood of consumer confusion. They also referenced earlier instances in 2021 and 2024 where the defendants allegedly adopted similar marks.

As the defendants failed to file a written statement and ceased appearing despite service, the plaintiffs sought a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court recorded that the defendants were served but did not take steps to contest the suit, noting that “no written statement was filed thereafter, and there was no further appearance on their behalf.” It stated that the defendants had been proceeded ex parte and that the plaintiffs pressed only for permanent injunction and costs.

The Court referred to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and reproduced the statutory language: “the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.” It observed that this provision allowed the Court to pass a decree when the pleadings were verified and supported by affidavit.

The Court noted the interim injunction and referred to an email sent by the defendants, quoting: “I…assuring you that I am ready to surrender the use of trade mark ‘CREMESTROL’…and word ‘ACTION’ along with LOGO…‘MADMAXX ACTION’…subject to condition that I will not bear any kind of cost.”

Assessing the plaintiffs’ submissions, the Court observed that “on a bare perusal, the impugned marks adopted by the Defendants and the packaging are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trade dress/packaging and trademark registrations.” It further stated that “such use amounts to infringement of the Plaintiffs’ trademark, copyright, and trade dress rights.” The Court continued that “The Defendants’ actions are calculated to mislead consumers into believing that their products originate from or are associated with the Plaintiffs, thereby unlawfully encroaching upon the goodwill and proprietary rights that the Plaintiffs have built through years of business and marketing efforts.”

Regarding the defendants’ conduct, the Court recorded that “they have no substantive defence to advance on merits, and they admit to the contents of the plaint.” It noted that the plaintiffs had placed materials showing similar conduct in 2021 and 2024.

The Court concluded that the pleadings and affidavit demonstrated that “no triable issues arise in the present matter.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court : Cancellation Of Registered Conveyances Lies Exclusively With Civil Courts Despite SARFAESI Proceedings Before DRT

The Court directed: “a decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph ‘54’ of the plaint.  The remaining prayer clauses (f) and (g) of the Plaintiffs are dismissed as not pressed. Lump sum legal costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- [Five Lakhs] are being awarded to the Plaintiffs vis-à-vis the Defendants.”

“Plaintiffs will be at liberty to approach the trademark registry for seeking appropriate directions with respect to TM Nos. 5829564 and 5667019, in view of the e-mail dated 05.11.2024 and the decree passed today. With the aforesaid directions, this suit, along with pending applications (if any), stands disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms. V. Mohini, Mr. Udayvir Rana, Advocates

Case Title: Castrol Limited & Ors. v. Ali Hussain Amir Ali Namdar & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 831/2024
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora