IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
HTC Corporation - Appellant
Versus
LV Degao - Respondent
CS(COMM) 263 of 2020
Decided On : 06-04-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for interim injunction by plaintiff. (Para 1) |
| 2. background on the plaintiff's trademark history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details on the defendant's trademark use and history. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. plaintiff's argument for trademark infringement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. supporting case law for the plaintiff's argument. (Para 15) |
| 6. defendant's counterarguments regarding trademark distinctions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. discussion on legal standards for trademark reputation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. arguments surrounding passing off and goodwill. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. plaintiff's rebuttal against defendant's claims. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 10. need for interim relief. (Para 32) |
| 11. overview of the case's proceedings and jurisdiction. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 12. legal standards for prosecceding with interim injunction. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. analysis of the balance of convenience in granting relief. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 14. plaintiff's trademark distinctiveness and its implications. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 15. conclusion on trademark reputation and infringement. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 16. final judgment on the case and injunction. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
ORDER
I.A. 5795/2020 (by the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-l & 2 CPC for interim injunction)
1. This order will dispose of the application [I.A.5795/2020] under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") filed by the plaintiff along with the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, dilution, unfair competition, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up etc.
2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Taiwan and claims to be a leading manufacturer of consumer electronic items, such as, smartphones, mobile phones, personal digital assistant (PDA) devices, virtual reality head-mounted displays, etc. The plaintiff was initially incorporated in the year 1997 as `High Tech Computer Corporation', but gained popularity quickly as "HTC" and has been known as such since 1998. The plaintiff also used these alphabets for the first time in 1998 in relation to its product i.e., a phone named "HTC Kangaroo". In 2008, the plaintiff formally changed its name to "HTC Corporation" reflecting the growing popularity of the "HTC" brand.
3. The plaintiff got the Trade Mark
registered in India in Class-9 on 12th May, 2006, vide Registration No.1451016 which was valid till 12th May, 2026. It has been doing business in India using the said Trade Mark
since 2007, though it had begun using it internationally since 2006. In 2008, the plaintiff also launched the first ever Android-based mobile phone under the trade mark
/HTC Dream in India. It applied for and was granted registration of the Trade Mark
on 24th January, 2008 vide Registration No.1645578 in Class-9 in India. On 24th November, 2011, the plaintiff applied for and was granted registration of its Trade Mark
in Class 9 in India. On 7th March, 2014, the plaintiff obtained international registration for the Trade Mark
in China in Class 9 vide Registration No.6481646 and on 21st March, 2015, in Class 8 vide Registration No.12262154.
4. The details of the registration in more than 90 jurisdictions across the world have been listed in para No.8 of the plaint, and in India, in para No.9 of the plaint, which are reproduced as under: -
TRADE MARK REGISTRATIONS - INTERNATIONAL
| Sl. No. | Trade Mark | Registration No. | Registration Date | Class | Country |
| 1. | ![]() | 1220583 | 23/1/2008 | 9 | Australia |
| 2. | ![]() | 829569715 | 28/1/2008 | 9 | Brazil |
| 3. | ![]() | 6540975 | 4/12/2008 | 9 | European Union |
| 4. | ![]() | 5226352 | 24/4/2009 | 9 | Japan |
| 5. | ![]() | 1226215 | 21/3/2015 | 8 | China |
| 6. | ![]() | 8020903 | 7/3/2014 | 9 | China |
| 7. | ![]() | 3636164 | 09/06/2009 | 9 | United States of America |
| 8. | ![]() | 393552 | 12/11/2009 | 9 | Russia |
| 9. | ![]() | T0800791B | 23/1/2008 | 9 | Singapore |
| 10. | ![]() | 106187 | 9/2/2011 | 9 | United Arab Emirates |
| 11. | ![]() | 571980 | 22/1/2008 | 9 | Switzerland |
| 12. | ![]() | 60914 | 28/8/2009 | 9 | OAPI (African Intellectual Property Organization) |
| 13. | ![]() | 40-0846192 | 13/12/2010 | 9 | Korea |
| 14. | ![]() | 8001302 | 27/12/2007 | 9 | Malaysia |
| 15. | ![]() | 142900382 | 4/7/200 | ||
![]() | |||||
![]() | |||||
![]() |
![]() | ||||
![]() | ||||
![]() |

![]() | ||||
























The plaintiff can establish passing off and infringement under the Trade Marks Act even without direct market presence, provided it demonstrates sufficient reputation and links to its brand.
Section 24(4)(c) does not expect the registered trade mark of the plaintiff to have become a well-known Trade Mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(z)(g)”.
Court upheld that unauthorized use of a well-known trade mark constitutes infringement, as it can mislead consumers about product sources, affirming the importance of protecting brand reputation.
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.