Delhi High Court: In the present case,Hero Motocorp Ltd. (plaintiff) sought a decree of permanent injunction for infringement of its trade mark, passing off, unfair competition and other ancillary reliefs in respect of its trade mark ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’ and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ (‘Subject Marks’) under Classes 12 and 37. A Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia J., granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero MotoCorp Ltd., restraining Urban Electric Mobility (P) Ltd. and its associated entities (defendants) from using the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’ (‘impugned marks’) for two wheelers.
It observed that irreparable injury would be caused to Hero Motocorp Ltd. if the defendants are allowed to continue to use the Impugned Marks.
Background:
Hero Motocorp Ltd. was engaged in the business of designing and developing motorcycles and scooters for customers around the world. Hero Motocorp Ltd. was the prior and registered proprietor of the Subject Marks under Classes 12 and 37. Hero Motocorp Ltd. had commercially used the mark ‘DESTINI’ in the course of trade since 2018 and had not permitted or licensed the use of the Subject Marks in any manner.
Hero Motocorp Ltd. submitted that Defendants 1 to 4, operating as ‘Urban e-bikes’, and Defendant 5 and 6, trading as ‘Galaxy EV’, were involved in manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and promoting electric scooters under the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’ (‘impugned marks’). They shared a commercial relationship. A field investigation by Hero Motocorp Ltd. had revealed the use of these marks, which were structurally, phonetically, and visually identical or deceptively similar to registered marks of Hero Motocorp Ltd. ; ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, used for two wheelers under Class 12.
It was further submitted that the Impugned Marks were structurally, phonetically, and visually identical and/or deceptively similar to the Subject Marks of Hero Motocorp Ltd. Any spoken or verbal use of these marks misrepresents the origin of products, causing consumer confusion. The defendants’ adoption and use of the Impugned Marks for identical goods (two-wheelers) was mala fide, intended to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of Hero Motocorp Ltd., creating a false impression of association or collaboration. Such use, without authority or license, amounted to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with Section 29(3) presuming a likelihood of confusion. Defendants 1 to 3 also used the mark ‘HERO’, furthering misrepresentation and risking irreparable loss of goodwill, erosion of distinctiveness, and consumer trust.
It was submitted that given the considerable popularity of the Subject Marks, any use of similar marks on lower-quality products harms the consumer trust and brand exclusivity of Hero Motocorp Ltd. These injuries were not quantifiable or compensable monetarily, entitling Hero Motocorp Ltd. to protection as the prior and registered proprietor of ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’.
Case Analysis and Decision
The Court having considered the submissions, pleadings and documents on record observed that a prima facie case had been made out by Hero Motocorp Ltd. for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience was in favour of Hero Motocorp Ltd. and against the defendants. The Court further observed that irreparable injury would be caused to Hero Motocorp Ltd. if the defendants were allowed to continue the usage of the Impugned Marks.
The Court, thus restrained the defendants, their owners, partners, directors, business associates, officers, servants, employees, and anyone acting for and on their behalf, from selling, offering to sell, rendering, manufacturing, advertising, promoting through any offline and online means such as websites or social media platforms or in any other manner using the Impugned Marks or any other mark identical and / or deceptively similar to the Subject Marks in relation to the identical or any allied or cognate goods or services falling under Classes 12 and 37, resulting in infringement of Subject Marks, passing off and unfair competition.
The Court directed that compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be completed within two weeks and listed the matter for hearing on 24-11-2025.
[Hero Motocorp Ltd. v. Urban Electric Mobility (P) Ltd., CS(COMM) 832 of 2025, decided on 13-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Kanishk Kumar, Deepika Pokharia, Priyansh Kohli and Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates.
