Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by the plaintiffs for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the plaintiffs’ trade mark, A Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J*, granted ex-parte ad interim injunction while observing that the defendants wilfully misused the plaintiffs’ trade mark to encash on the plaintiffs’ well-established goodwill and name.
Background
Plaintiffs 1 to 4 (‘the plaintiffs’) are Swedish companies operating in the transportation and automotive sector. Their flagship company in India is ‘Volvo India Pvt. Ltd.’ The plaintiffs have been manufacturing and providing goods and services under the registered trade name ‘VOLVO’ since 1915. The defendants in the present case, are manufacturers of buses and operate inter-city bus services, and are alleged to have infringed upon the trade mark of the plaintiffs. Defendant 1 manufactures buses that look nearly identical and deceptively similar to the original Volvo buses. It also installs on them three-dimensional motifs of the Volvo grille slash trade mark 
.
Defendant 2 is an inter-city bus service that purchases and operates buses manufactured by Defendant 1. It is alleged that to lure customers, it uses the signage 
to imitate association with the plaintiffs. Further, Defendant 3 is also an inter-city bus service that uses buses which resemble those of the plaintiff and has used the grille slash trade mark as well, but instead of the term ‘VOLVO’ it uses the term ‘SHANTI’ encircled in the grille 
.
The plaintiffs submitted that its trade mark ‘VOLVO’ has been recognized as a well-known mark in India by Trade Marks Registry, which ensures that the said trade mark is entitled to the strongest and broadest form of protection against misuse by unrelated third-party entities, even in relation to goods and services which are different from those of the plaintiffs.
In April 2025, the plaintiffs learnt that Defendant 1 is manufacturing and selling buses that are made to look deceptively similar to those of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs submitted that the defendants, by manufacturing, using, displaying, advertising lookalike of the plaintiffs’ well-known products, are trying to create an unauthorized association with the plaintiffs, and target customers and deceive them to believe that the plaintiffs have launched an affordable new range of products.
Thus, the plaintiff filed the present application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to seek a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trade mark of the plaintiffs, along with passing off and other ancillary reliefs.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the defendants’ acts are violating the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiffs’ in the suit trade marks. The defendants have deliberately and dishonestly copied and created fake/replica/lookalike/counterfeit products of the plaintiffs’ well- known products bearing the suit trade marks. The Court stated that the defendants’ attempt to use the suit trademarks is nothing but a mala fide attempt to encash on the plaintiffs’ rights and amount to infringement and passing off of the suit trademarks, with a sole intention of riding piggyback on the plaintiffs’ immense reputation and goodwill to achieve immense publicity, marketing and business gains.
The Court observed that Defendant 1 has admitted manufacturing and selling buses carrying the infringing logos on more than 100-125 occasions. Therefore, the Court stated that if the actions of the defendants remain unrestrained, then the practice of using the infringing grille slash trade marks on any bus will become rampant and the exclusivity associated with the plaintiffs’ buses will vanish over time.
In light of such considerations, the Court held that the balance of convenience rests in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and their affiliates from manufacturing, using, supplying, deploying, offering for sale or advertising in any form the ‘VOLVO’ trade mark or any other mark, design or trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered and well-known ‘VOLVO’ trade marks, including the grille-slash mark or front-end configuration, in relation to physical use on buses, or in relation to travel services to customers.
The next hearing on the matter has been listed before the Court on 9-10-2025.
[Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Ganesh Motor Body Repairs, I.A. 14595 of 2025, decided on 30-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Amit Bansal
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vaishali R Mittal, Siddhant Chamola, Sajjal Arora, Advocates.
