Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Trademark Infringement Dispute Over “HP” Mark.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal against an interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+”, holding that such use amounted to clear trademark infringement of the respondent’s registered mark “HP”. The Court ruled that once prima facie infringement of a validly registered trademark is established, an injunction must ordinarily follow. The deliberate use of the ® symbol and imitation of packaging were held to demonstrate lack of bona fides and dishonest adoption.

Background:

1. The respondent, Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd., claimed ownership of the registered trademark “HP” in Class 6 for self-drilling screws through two registrations dated 8 June 2007 and 24 November 2014, originally held by Landmark Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. and later assigned to it.
2. The appellants, Ganraj Enterprises, were manufacturing and selling identical goods under the marks “HP+” and “HP®+”, allegedly along with deceptively similar packaging and logos.
3. The respondent filed a commercial suit seeking permanent and interim injunction.
4. The Commercial Court granted interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, restraining the appellants from using the impugned marks.
5. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the present appeal.

Issues

1. Whether the respondent had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
2. Whether the validity of the respondent’s trademark registration could be questioned at the interim stage.
3. Whether territorial restriction attached to the earlier registration applied to the later registration.

Court’s Observations

1. The rival marks “HP” and “HP+ / HP®+” were found to be deceptively similar, used for identical goods.
2. Use of the ® symbol by the appellants without any registered trademark was held to be illegal and misleading, aggravating consumer confusion.
3. Replication of the respondent’s colour scheme, shikara logo, and “LE” insignia reflected dishonest intent.
4. Registration of a trademark carries a statutory presumption of validity under Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act at the interim stage.
5. The territorial restriction applicable to the earlier registration did not extend to the later registration, which had pan-India applicability.
6. The Court reiterated that at the Order XXXIX stage, detailed examination of registration validity is impermissible unless overwhelming illegality is shown.

Decision

1. The Court found a clear prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b), 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act.
2. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury were held to be in favour of the respondent.
3. The interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court was upheld.

Held

1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Interim injunction against Ganraj Enterprises confirmed.
3. No order as to costs.

Legal Principle:

In cases of clear trademark infringement involving identical goods and deceptively similar marks, injunction must follow once prima facie infringement is established, and challenges to trademark validity are generally matters for trial.