Bombay High Court: While hearing an Interim Application filed in a Commercial IP Suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Trade Marks Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor held the defendant’s impugned mark “TRACK-ON” to be virtually identical and deceptively similar to the registered mark “TRACKON” and likely to cause confusion. The Court accordingly restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark, observing that its adoption was dishonest and lacking in bona fides.
Background:
The plaintiff company has been engaged in the business of courier services, international shipping, e-commerce logistics and supply chain management since the year 2002. In connection with its services, the plaintiff coined and adopted the mark “TRACKON” and secured registrations of composite label marks in Class 39 viz. 
, 
and 
, all of which are valid and subsisting.
In 2016, the defendant was appointed as a business associate of the plaintiff for promoting its services in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Pursuant to this arrangement, the defendant carried on business under the name incorporating the word “TRACKON” until 2023.
In October 2023, the plaintiff called upon the defendant to discontinue the use of “TRACKON” and to change its business name. The correspondence exchanged between October and November 2023 clearly reflected that the defendant had agreed to comply with the plaintiff’s demand.
However, in 2024, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had filed an application for registration of the mark 
“TRACK-ON EXPRESS” on a “proposed-to-be-used” basis and had also constituted a new partnership firm under the name 
“TRACK-ON EXPRESS LOGISTICS.” Upon such discovery, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice and terminated the business association with the defendant.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the TRACKON marks, each containing “TRACKON” as its dominant, essential, and leading feature. It was noted that all registrations were valid and subsisting and had not been assailed.
The Court observed that where a word constitutes a prominent and essential part of a registered composite mark, unauthorised use of that word amounts to infringement under Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act. It was highlighted that “TRACKON” had acquired substantial goodwill through long, continuous, and extensive use, and the defendant had not disputed this.
The Court noted that the impugned mark “TRACK-ON” was virtually identical and deceptively similar to “TRACKON,” and the services offered by the defendant were the same as those of the plaintiff. It was further observed that the defendant had abandoned its plea of prior use and had not disputed the similarity of marks or services.
The Court emphasised that the defendant had made no attempt to demonstrate that its adoption of “TRACK-ON” was honest or bona fide. On the contrary, the adoption was dishonest and lacking in bona fides, evident from the fact that the defendant’s application for registration was on a “proposed-to-be-used” basis and correspondence showed agreement to change its name.
The Court rejected the contention of suppression, noting that the letter dated 05-05-2016 recorded that the defendant was a “Business Associate” acting “on behalf of” the plaintiff, thereby supporting the plaintiff’s case of permissive user. The Court also rejected the jurisdictional objection, holding that leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent had already been granted and that such objections must be decided at trial.
Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiff had clearly established a case for interim reliefs, both in law and equity, and restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark.
[Trackon Couriers (P) Ltd. v. B. N. Srinivas, Interim Application (L) No. 35022 of 2024, decided on 22-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Venkatesh Dhond, Sr. Adv. a/w Anand Mohan, Alhan Kayser, Varsha Vasave, i/b Avesh Kayser
For the Defendant: Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Ankit Tiwari, i/b Shashipal Shankar