Delhi High Court: While hearing a petition filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, filed by the plaintiff, Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd., seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction alleging unauthorised use of its well-known trade mark “CROMPTON” by the defendants in respect of identical electrical goods, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the impugned mark used by the defendants was identical and likely to cause confusion among consumers. Accordingly, the Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark and directing removal of infringing listings from online platforms.
Background
The plaintiff is a public listed company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, with its registered office in Mumbai. The origin of the mark “CROMPTON” can be traced to Colonel R.E.B. Crompton, a British Engineer associated with early electricity legislation in India and founder of R.E.B. Crompton & Co. in the United Kingdom. Over time, the business underwent several name changes and was known as Crompton Greaves Ltd. in 1966. In 2015, pursuant to a scheme of demerger, the consumer electrical business, including fans, lighting, and domestic appliances, was transferred to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of a wide range of consumer electrical products, including fans, lighting, pumps, home automation systems, and wiring accessories, and also exporting its products globally. It claimed extensive and continuous use of the mark “CROMPTON” over several decades, resulting in substantial goodwill and recognition. The mark had been declared a well-known trade mark, and the plaintiff asserted both statutory and common law rights, including exclusive rights over the use of the mark in relation to electrical and allied goods.
The dispute arose from the alleged activities of Defendants 1 to 5, who are engaged in manufacturing, marketing, and selling electrical goods, particularly wires and cables, under the identical mark “CROMPTON”. These products were also promoted through online platforms operated by Defendants 6 to 8. Defendant 9 (John Doe/Ashok Kumar) represented unknown parties involved in the manufacture or sale of the infringing goods.
Upon gaining knowledge of the alleged infringement, the plaintiff had engaged an independent investigator, who discovered that the impugned products were being openly sold and falsely represented as licensed products of the plaintiff. The packaging of these goods bore the name “Crompton Cable Ind. (Delhi)” without any verifiable address or identifiable legal entity. Online searches did not reveal any legitimate entity by that name, suggesting deliberate misrepresentation and possible counterfeiting.
The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ use of the identical mark “CROMPTON” was likely to cause confusion among consumers, who might have mistakenly believed that the infringing goods originated from, or were associated with, the plaintiff. Given the identical nature of the mark and the overlapping product categories, the plaintiff alleged clear infringement, passing off, and an attempt to exploit its established reputation and goodwill.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the plaintiff, had established a strong prima facie case based on its extensive trade mark registrations, consistent sales turnover, significant promotional expenditure, and long-standing reputation associated with the well-known mark “CROMPTON”. The Court noted that the mark had acquired immense goodwill and distinctiveness over nearly a century and enjoyed wide visibility across traditional and digital media platforms.
It was further held that the defendants’ mark was not merely deceptively similar but identical to the plaintiff’s mark in phonetic, visual, structural, and conceptual aspects. Given the overlapping trade channels and consumer base, the likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers was high. The Court emphasised that an average consumer of such goods would not undertake a detailed inquiry into the source of the products, thereby increasing the risk of misrepresentation. Thus, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, and that irreparable harm would be caused if interim protection was not granted.
Accordingly, the Court passed the following directions:
-
Defendants 1 to 5, along with their associated persons, were restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any products or services under the mark “CROMPTON” or any other registered trade marks of the plaintiff.
-
Defendants 1 to 5 were restrained from using the mark “CROMPTON”, or any mark incorporating it, in any manner whatsoever, including as part of trade names, domain names, keywords, metatags, or trading styles, in relation to any goods or services.
-
Defendants 6 to 8 were directed to remove and take down all infringing listings, advertisements, and promotional content identified by the plaintiff, and to furnish relevant seller details to the Court and the plaintiff in a sealed cover. They were further directed to suspend or block access to any additional infringing websites or listings identified by the plaintiff upon receipt of supporting evidence.
[Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. v. S.D. Electronics, CS (COMM) No. 274 of 2026, decided on 19-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ankit Sahni, Kritika Sahni, Chirag Ahulwalia, Mohit Marv, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mrityunjay Mahendra, Advocate.