Riding into Legal Trouble: Delhi High Court Curbs Trademark Infringement on 'Destiny' Scooters

In a significant move for intellectual property protection in the electric vehicle sector, the High Court of Delhi has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Hero MotoCorp Limited. The court’s order effectively halts, for now, the use of the brand names ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’ by Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited and Galaxy EV—marks that the court found to be deceptively similar to Hero’s registered portfolio.

The Fuel for the Dispute

The conflict stems from Hero MotoCorp’s claim to the registered, prior-used marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, used extensively for their two-wheeler range since 2018. Hero MotoCorp alleged that the defendants, operating under the trade names ‘Urban e-bikes’ and ‘Galaxy EV’, began manufacturing and selling electric scooters under names that mimic their own.

Following a field investigation, Hero initiated legal action, contending that this adoption was a deliberate attempt to piggyback on their established market reputation and brand goodwill.

Arguments on the Road

Counsel for Hero MotoCorp argued that the defendants' choice of nomenclature for their electric scooters wasn't merely a coincidence but a tactical move to cause consumer confusion. They highlighted that: * Identification Conflation: The phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the marks is so high that consumers are likely to believe the electric scooters are either manufactured by Hero or offered in collaboration with them. * Dilution and Risk: Any substandard performance or lack of quality control in the defendants' products could irrevocably damage the reputation and distinctiveness of Hero’s brand. * Misrepresentation: The plaintiff pointed out that some defendants were even using the ‘HERO’ mark to further complicate the misrepresentation, creating a false association that misleads the public.

The Court’s Reasoning

Presiding over the matter, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made for urgent relief. The Court underscored the necessity of protecting the plaintiff's proprietary interests, noting that the balance of convenience clearly favored the plaintiff, as continued infringement would cause harm that cannot be easily quantified in monetary terms.

Key Observations from the Bench

The court’s order emphasized the gravity of the potential confusion:

> "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."

> "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."

> "The Defendants, their owners, partners, directors, business associates... are restrained from selling, offering to sell... or in any other manner using the Impugned Marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’... in relation to the identical or any allied or cognate goods or services."

The Road Ahead

The Court has now set the stage for formalizing the pleadings, with the matter scheduled to return before the Joint Registrar in October 2025. This order serves as a stern reminder to emerging EV manufacturers that the protection of established intellectual property rights remains paramount. For now, the defendants are barred from using the disputed branding, effectively forcing a rebranding or cessation of the sale of the affected models until further judicial oversight.

This case highlights the increasing scrutiny that the Indian judiciary is applying to brand protection in the fast-paced competitive landscape of electric mobility.