Delhi High Court Restrains Sunanda Greentech from Trademark Infringement of Hero MotoCorp’s ‘DESTINY’ Marks - 2026-05-27

Guarding the Brand: Delhi High Court Blocks Unauthorized Use of ‘DESTINY’ Marks in EV Sector

The battle for brand identity in the competitive electric vehicle (EV) market has reached the Delhi High Court. In a recent order, the Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of two-wheeler giant Hero MotoCorp Limited , restraining Sunanda Greentech Private Limited from utilizing marks that the Court found to be deceptively similar to Hero’s well-established trademarks.

A Legacy Challenged

For over four decades, Hero MotoCorp has been a dominant force in the premium motorcycle and scooter segment. Central to its brand portfolio are the registered trademarks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, used extensively since 2018.

The trouble began in June 2025, when Hero discovered that Sunanda Greentech was advertising and selling electric scooters under the names ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, ‘DESTINY PRO’, and ‘DEST PRO +’. Despite receiving a formal cease-and-desist notice from Hero in June 2025, Sunanda Greentech reportedly failed to respond or cease its activities, prompting Hero to approach the Court for urgent protection.

The Arguments: Protecting Goodwill

Counsel for Hero MotoCorp argued that the defendant's adoption of nearly identical marks was a deliberate attempt to capitalize on Hero’s long-standing reputation and immense goodwill. The plaintiff highlighted that its sales turnover for the 'DESTINY' brand reached a staggering Rs. 368.67 crores for the financial year 2025-2026.

The crux of the plaintiff’s argument was that the phonetic, structural, and visual similarity between the rival marks was bound to mislead the public, causing consumers to wrongly assume that Sunanda Greentech’s electric vehicles were either manufactured by, authorized by, or associated with Hero MotoCorp.

Legal Analysis: The Mechanics of Confusion

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the case, observed that the defendant was operating in the same domain—two-wheelers—as the plaintiff. The Court emphasized that in trademark law, the likelihood of confusion is the primary metric for intervention.

Drawing on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi , the Court also granted the plaintiff an exemption from the mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency required to prevent ongoing infringement.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the potential for consumer deception:

• "The Impugned Marks are structurally, phonetically and visually identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Marks."
• "The phonetic similarity between the rival marks is bound to create confusion in the minds of consumers who will assume the goods of the Defendant have an association with that of the Plaintiff."
• "The Defendant’s use and adoption of the deceptively similar Plaintiff’s Marks for identical goods appears to be intentional to ride upon the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the Plaintiff."

The Court’s Decision

The Court ruled in favor of Hero MotoCorp, issuing an ex-parte injunction that prevents Sunanda Greentech from manufacturing, selling, or advertising any products under the infringing marks. The order extends to the defendant's directors, partners, and employees, strictly prohibiting any association or connection with the plaintiff.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder to smaller entities that the digital marketplace offers no shield for trademark infringement. For industry leaders, it reinforces the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding intellectual property rights against "piggybacking" on established market reputations. The matter is currently slated for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on December 23, 2025.