Back
The has temporarily restrained Ltd and a company under its control from using the " PRO" trademark for their services, granting an ad interim injunction in a suit filed by the ).
Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the use of the mark by the two companies appeared to be and was causing confusion, deception and a among the public. The court noted that consumers could mistakenly believe the services originated from or were connected with or endorsed by the organization, which offers advocacy, consultancy, business research, professional networking and conferences to human resources professionals.
In a consequential direction, the court also ordered , impleaded as the domain registrar and web-hosting provider, to withdraw support for the website shrmpro.com. and were directed to block or disable access to the mobile applications "SHRMpro" and "SHRMpro-geo," which are available on their respective platforms. The involvement of the tech giants reflects the reality that trademark disputes increasingly require cooperation from third-party intermediaries to be effective.
A mark applied for within weeks of incorporation
The dispute centres on a company incorporated in that operates under 's control. According to 's case, the entity applied to register " PRO" on — less than a month after its incorporation — and did so on a "" basis.
opposed that application on , and it was recorded as abandoned on , after the company failed to file a . The company then filed a fresh application for the "SHRMpro" in on , this time claiming use since .
sent a on , but the company refused to comply in its reply the following day. That pattern — the prompt application after incorporation, the abandoned first registration attempt, and the immediate rejection of the cease-and-desist demand — formed a significant part of 's .
A dormant website and a look
further alleged that although shrmpro.com was registered in 2015, archived records showed no discernible use of the website until around late 2020. The organization also claimed that the website employs a blue-and-white colour scheme and visual presentation to 's own branding, adding to the risk that the public would draw a between the two sets of services.
Taken together, argued, these factors pointed to an intent to ride on the goodwill of the "" brand rather than to develop an independent identity in the market. The court accepted that had established a case for an ad interim injunction, that the favoured granting relief, and that would suffer if the injunction were refused.
Scope of the restraint
Until the next hearing, , the company operating under its control, and all those acting on their behalf are restrained from offering for sale, advertising, marketing, exporting, importing, displaying or otherwise dealing in services under " PRO" or under any mark identical or to 's registered "," " INDIA" and other formative trademarks, where such use amounts to infringement or .
The restraint applies to online and offline activity alike, including social media. The breadth of the order matters: it is not confined to the exact " PRO" mark but extends to marks that are indistinguishable or to 's registered . That gives protection beyond the specific website and app names at the centre of the suit.
Because the injunction was granted , it was issued without hearing the defendants. The order is therefore interim in nature and subject to modification or vacation after the defendants are given an opportunity to contest it. Such orders are granted only where the court is satisfied that the urgency is genuine and that delay would cause .
What happens next
The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on , and will next be heard by the court on . The Registrar's hearing will deal with procedural matters, including the completion of , before the main arguments on the injunction are taken up. At that stage, the defendants can argue against the continuation of the order, and the court will determine whether the interim arrangement should hold pending the final disposal of the suit.
For , the order provides immediate, practical relief: the website and apps associated with the disputed mark must be blocked, and the defendants must cease all use of the contested branding until the court decides otherwise. For and its controlled entity, the practical consequence is significant — their services, online presence and distribution through app stores are now in limbo pending the next round of proceedings.
The case also illustrates the growing willingness of Indian courts to issue orders that run beyond the parties themselves, requiring online intermediaries such as domain registrars and app store operators to enforce trademark relief. As the digital economy expands, such directions are likely to become an increasingly common feature of infringement litigation.
