Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Wipro Enterprises Private Limited (plaintiff), one of India’s fastest-growing FMCG companies seeking urgent relief against trademark infringement and passing off by Global Care Industries (defendants) against mark “MACKLEAN” being deceptively similar to “MAXKLEEN”. Amit Bansal, J.*, restrained the Global Care Industries and its associated individuals, directors, agents, distributors, and anyone acting on their behalf from using, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, exporting, importing, or dealing in any goods under the mark “MACKLEAN” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to “MAXKLEEN” or “WIPRO MAXKLEEN,” pending disposal of the present application.
The controversy revolved around the plaintiff’s registered and widely used trademark “MAXKLEEN,” which it acquired in 2007 through the acquisition of a Singapore-based company, Unza Holdings Limited, the original proprietor of the mark since 1990. The mark “MAXKLEEN” was coined by the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest for its premium disinfectants and cleaners and has since acquired significant goodwill and brand recognition, both globally and in India. After acquiring Unza Holdings, Wipro became the rightful owner of the “MAXKLEEN” trademark via a series of assignment agreements. The mark has been continuously used in India at least since 2019, and Wipro holds multiple trademark registrations for it in Classes 3 and 5, covering cleaning and disinfectant products. Wipro’s usage of the mark has resulted in substantial sales amounting to ₹16.4 crores in India during the financial year 2023—24 alone — and extensive advertisement and marketing expenses have been incurred to solidify its brand identity.
In March 2025, Wipro discovered listings on e-commerce platforms like Meesho and TradeRaise of products branded as “MACKLEAN,” sold by the defendants. These were cleaning and disinfectant products identical to those sold under the “MAXKLEEN” mark. Wipro contended that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark to capitalize on the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, which constituted both trademark infringement and passing off and fearing that the defendants might remove the infringing products if notified in advance, Wipro sought an ex-parte injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize the counterfeit goods.
The Court found a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and acknowledged that the mark “MAXKLEEN” had been in long-standing use and had acquired substantial goodwill and market recognition. The registered status of the mark further fortified Wipro’s claim to exclusivity.
A visual and phonetic comparison of the marks “MAXKLEEN” (plaintiff) and “MACKLEAN” (defendant) revealed a high degree of similarity. The Court noted that both marks were being used in the same market for identical goods, namely disinfectants and cleaners and that such similarity could mislead consumers and cause marketplace confusion. This likelihood of deception was deemed sufficient to satisfy the test of infringement and passing off.
Further, the Court accepted that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that the injury to its business, goodwill, and reputation would be irreparable if the defendants were allowed to continue the infringing acts. It also noted that consumers would be prejudiced due to potential deception regarding the origin of the goods.
Thus, the Court restrained the defendants and its associated individuals, directors, agents, distributors, and anyone acting on their behalf from using, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, exporting, importing, or dealing in any goods under the mark “MACKLEAN” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to “MAXKLEEN” or “WIPRO MAXKLEEN,” pending disposal of the present application.
[Wipro Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Global Care Industries, CS Comm 365 of 2025, decided on 23-04-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Amit Bansal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Mr. Raghu Sinha and Ms. Amira Dhawan, Advocates for plaintiff
