The High Court of Delhi has issued a definitive ruling in a trademark infringement lawsuit, permanently restraining the firm Veepro Lights and Decor from using the name "VEEPRO," which the court found to be deceptively similar to the well-known "WIPRO" brand. In addition to the permanent injunction, the court ordered the defendant to pay 4 lakh rupees in damages and legal costs. This decision follows the defendant’s failure to participate in the proceedings or respond to the allegations after being duly served with court summons.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Vikas Mahajan invoked the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to pronounce judgment when a defendant fails to present a written statement. The suit was brought by Wipro Enterprises Private Limited, which argued that the phonetic and visual similarity between the two names was likely to cause confusion among consumers and damage its long-standing corporate identity. Wipro, which has operated under its registered trademark since 1977, successfully demonstrated that its brand has attained the status of a well-known trademark, a designation officially recognized by the High Court in a prior legal proceeding in October 2025.

Safeguarding an Established Corporate Identity

The litigation was initiated after Wipro discovered that the defendant was using the "VEEPRO" mark on its website to market lighting and interior decor products—a sector where Wipro has maintained a robust market presence for decades. The plaintiff highlighted its extensive commercial footprint, noting that its sales for the financial year 2023-2024 reached approximately 5,055.9 crore rupees, with a significant marketing expenditure of 702.2 crore rupees during the same period. These figures underscored the substantial investment the company has made in cultivating brand equity.

The High Court emphasized that the plaintiff's registered status provided exclusive rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Justice Mahajan noted that the evidence of registration, combined with the defendant's complete failure to offer a defense, necessitated an immediate intervention. By not entering an appearance or filing a written statement, the defendant allowed all averments in the plaint to remain uncontroverted, effectively conceding to the claims of infringement and passing off.

Enforcing Consequences of Procedural Silence

The path to this final decree was marked by the defendant’s continued absence. Following the court’s initial interim order in February 2025—which had already restricted Veepro from using the offending mark—the defendant failed to engage with the legal process. The court-appointed Local Commissioner, tasked with inspecting the defendant's operations, submitted a report that further corroborated the plaintiff's claims.

The court’s decision to move toward a swift resolution reflected a judicial policy against letting litigation languish due to a defendant's calculated indifference. Citing the precedent established in Disney Enterprises I.N.C. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors. , the court observed: “where the defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, the time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is nothing but a repetition of the contents of the plaint.”

By adopting this rationale, the court bypassed the requirement for lengthy ex parte evidence and moved directly to judgment. The 4 lakh rupee financial award was calculated based on the actual costs incurred by the plaintiff, specifically including the court fees and the professional expenses paid to the court-appointed Local Commissioner.

Strengthening Judicial Efficiency in Trademark Disputes

The ruling serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with disregarding intellectual property litigation. By invoking Order VIII Rule 10, the High Court of Delhi reaffirmed its commitment to protecting established brands from unauthorized imitation. The court’s analysis was anchored in the principle that once the plaintiff’s rights are substantiated by valid registrations and well-known status, the burden shifts significantly to the defendant to provide a rebuttal. When that burden remains unmet, the court holds sufficient authority to act in the interest of justice.

In its final judgment, the court confirmed the permanent injunction against Veepro Lights and Decor, prohibiting it from using the "VEEPRO" trade name or any other sign identical or deceptively similar to "WIPRO" for any goods or services. The court allowed, however, that the defendant remains at liberty to rebrand its business using a name that does not conflict with the plaintiff’s protected intellectual property.

The suit stands disposed of, and the decree sheet will be drawn accordingly. With the matter finalized, the court has officially canceled the subsequent hearing dates that had been scheduled before the Joint Registrar, bringing the litigation to a conclusive close. Wipro’s victory not only secures its brand identity in the lighting sector but also reinforces the efficacy of summary proceedings in addressing clear cases of trademark infringement within the national capital's commercial jurisdiction.