IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Mr. Nitish Kumar & Ors. – Defendants
CS(COMM) 104 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark ownership and usage rights (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. protection of trademarks from unauthorized use (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. procedural compliance and service of defendants (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. procedural rulings in absence of defendants (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. compliance by third parties and implications (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. fraud and deception in trademark infringement (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. admission of documents and facts in ex-parte cases (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. imposition of damages and punitive measures (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. final decree and disposal of the suit (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. The present suit has been filed seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2, to prevent the dishonest adoption and subsequent unauthorized use of its trademarks and copyrights in relation to offering services and, inter alia, soliciting dealership enquiries with respect to sale and exhibition of electric vehicles bearing

trademark, through the domain name, www.evbikedealership.online and the e-mail ID contact@evbikedelearship.online, being registered with the defendant no.3/GoDaddy.com, LLC (DNR), as well as damages and costs.
2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no.1/Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited is in the business of electric vehicles and related infrastructure development. The plaintiff no.2 is a partnership firm established on 01.05.2010 and is the trademark holding entity of the plaintiff group of companies, which includes entities such as Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited (plaintiff no.1).
3. The plaintiff no.2, in order to obtain statutory protection over its brand and trademark HERO ELECTRIC, in the year 2008, when it was a part of the wider Munjal Group, applied for the registration of the trademark/device mark HERO ELECTRIC and its variants, the essential part/feature thereto being “Hero”/“Hero Electric”, under Class 12. The said trademarks are validly registered with effect from the year 2008, the details of which are as follows:-
4. It is stated that the plaintiff no.2, being the registered proprietor of the trademarks HERO/HERO ELECTRIC and its variants, has licensed the same to plaintiff no.1 for use with respect to electric vehicles and to take infringement actions against third parties, if required.
5. The plaintiffs own various HERO formative domains and maintain various HERO formative website(s) including but not limited to www.heroecogroup.com, www.heroecogroup.net, www.hero.in and https://www.heroelectric.in/ (registered in the name of the plaintiff group on 30.12.2006). It is further stated that goods of the plaintiff no.1 in India are also sold through other e-commerce websites and e-stores including but not limited to www.amazon.in, www.zigwheels.com, www.bikedekho.com/hero- electric-scooters and other e-commerce websites and online marketplace(s) all over India.
6. The plaintiffs, in the course of their business, have also created and developed several unique and distinctive logos, representations wherein the trademark HERO ELECTRIC has been depicted in an artistic style and each of such logo/representation are original artistic works within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the copyrights in the said works belong to the plaintiffs. Moreover, copyright in the literary material, brochures, pamphlets, printed material, as well as the web-dress and source code of the plaintiffs’ website, www.heroelectric.in (including the user interface therein) also belong to the plaintiffs.
7. It is further stated that the said trademarks HERO/HERO ELECTRIC have acquired distinctiveness through continued, extensive, and uninterrupted use thereof by the plaintiffs. Since its adoption, the plaintiffs have used the trademarks openly, continuously, and uninterruptedly till date. The plaintiffs have over the years done extensive business and carried out voluminous






Trademarks and copyrights are protectable against unauthorized use, and courts can grant permanent injunctions and punitive damages in cases of fraud and deception.
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' rights against infringement and passing off, validating their trademarks through established goodwill and allowing for summary judgment due to the defendant's non-a....
Trademark owners can obtain interim injunctions against unauthorized use and fraudulently misleading representations by third parties, if a prima facie case of infringement and public deception is es....
The court established that the unauthorized use of identical trademarks constitutes infringement and passing off, justifying a permanent injunction and awarding damages to the rightful trademark owne....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the infringement of a registered trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the entitlement to a permanent injunction and damages for the vio....
Trademark infringement and passing off can be established based on the use of deceptively similar marks and failure to comply with interim injunction orders.
Trademark infringement and protection of well-known marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Plaintiff's longstanding use and recognition of the trademark 'EXIDE' was upheld, barring the Defendants from its use, leading to a permanent injunction and damages.
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.