The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to HeroMotocorp by restraining a two-wheeler company Sunanda Greentech, from using the marks DESTINY, DESTINY+, DESTINY PRO and DEST PRO after finding those to be structurally, phonetically and visually identical to Hero’s marks.

The High Court was considering an application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, by the Plaintiff, seeking ex parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendant.

The Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, “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.”



Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal represented the Plaintiff.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff, engaged in the business of premium motorcycles and scooters for over 4 decades, claimed that it is the prior and registered proprietor of the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ (Plaintiff’s Marks) under Class 12 and 37. Since its adoption in 2018, the Plaintiff’s Marks had been continuously and uninterruptedly used by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling electric vehicles using identical and/or deceptively similar marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’,’DESTINY PRO’ and ‘DEST PRO +’ [Impugned Marks] in relation to identical/similar products falling under Class 12, i.e., two wheelers.

It was claimed that the Plaintiff first learnt of the Defendant’s infringing activity on the Defendant’s website whereby the Defendant was openly advertising and promoting e-scooters bearing the Impugned Marks. Defendant also listed its products on third-party e-commerce platforms such as India Mart, Just Dial, etc. The Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice, and despite service of the said notice, the Defendant failed to issue any response. It was the plaintiff’s case that the Defendant, by wrongful adoption and use of the Impugned Mark,s intended to convey/suggest that their purported goods originated and/or were associated or authorised by the Plaintiff.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the fact that the Plaintiff is the prior and registered proprietor of the wordmarks/trademarks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ [Plaintiff’s Marks] under Classes 12 and 37. It was further noticed that the Defendant was engaged in the business of identical goods under the Impugned Marks, which fell under Class 12 i.e., two wheelers.

The Bench further stated, “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 Bench was of the view that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendant. As per the Bench, the balance of convenience was also in favour of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss in case the Defendant was not restrained from using the Plaintiff’s registered wordmarks/trademarks.

The Bench thus ordered, “Consequently, until the next date of hearing the Defendant, its owners, partners, directors, business associates, officers, servants, employees, and anyone acting for and on its behalf are restrained from selling or offer to sell, rendering, manufacturing, advertising, promoting through any offline and online means or in any manner using the marks ‘DESTINY, DESTINY+, DESTINY PRO and DEST PRO or any other mark identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s wordmarks/trademarks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ in relation to the identical or any allied or cognate goods, amounting to infringement of trademark and passing off.”

Cause Title: Hero Motocorp Limited v. Sunanda Greentech Private Limited (Case No.: CS(COMM) 1271/2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Kanishk Kumar, Deepika Pokharia, Priyansh Kohli and Abhinav Bhalla

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.