Short Summary
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Eicher Motors Limited vs Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rupa Gujral & Ors.vsDaryaganj Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a passing off suit concerning the 'Moti Mahal' trademark. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were misleading the public by associating their restaurants with the Plaintiffs' famous brand, citing misuse of predecessor photographs and marks. While the Defendants vehemently disputed the claims, they offered a conciliatory gesture, committing to remove the disputed photograph from their website without conceding liability. The court proceeded to issue notices for an interim injunction while setting timelines for written statements and framing issues.
Unilever PLCvsSovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics
Unilever PLC filed an IP suit against Sovereign Chemicals & Cosmetics alleging infringement of its trademark, copyright, and common law rights related to product labeling and trade dress. The defendant claimed they were operating under a license in Saudi Arabia. The court found the use illicit but allowed the defendant to proceed by accepting their submission regarding the prayer clause.
Rajat Sharma & Anr.vsTamara Doc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an interim order in a suit concerning alleged infringement of personality and publicity rights, registered trademarks, and copyright. The court directed the plaintiff to serve advanced copies of their pending applications on the counsel representing proposed defendant no. 17 (Google LLC). This procedural step moves the litigation forward as the court prepares for further hearings regarding the injunction and impleadment requests.
Phonepe Pvt Ltd & Anr.vsAGF Finlease India Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Phonepe Pvt Ltd against AGF Finlease India Ltd and others. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks like 'PHONEPEY' and 'PHONEPEY LOAN,' leading to infringement, passing off, and dilution of PhonePe's goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered a restraint on the use of these marks across various platforms and directed the suspension of specific domains and social media accounts.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India LimitedvsJagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.