The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from using the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’, or any identical or deceptively similar variants, for electric scooters and related goods.
The plaintiffs, Hero MotoCorp, filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and ancillary reliefs, alleging that the defendants had adopted marks identical and/or deceptively similar to the registered marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’ owned by Hero for two-wheelers and related services in Classes 12 and 37. The plaintiff contended that these marks had been used in commerce since 2018 and had gained significant goodwill and recognition.
According to the plaint, the defendants, operating as ‘Urban e-bikes’ (Defendant Nos. 1–4) and ‘Galaxy EV’ (Defendant Nos. 5–6), were engaged in the manufacture, marketing, and sale of electric scooters under the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’. The plaintiff further alleged that Defendant No. 5 admitted to being a dealer for Defendant No. 1, directly procuring electric scooters using the ‘DESTINY’ mark. Hero MotoCorp’s field investigation, as well as listings and advertisements of the infringing products, were placed on record.
The plaintiff argued that the impugned marks were structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to the suit marks, likely to deceive the public and erode Hero’s brand distinctiveness and goodwill, particularly given the identical goods in question. It was further submitted that the defendants’ conduct was mala fide and intended to ride on the plaintiff’s reputation in the market. The use of the term ‘HERO’ by some defendants exacerbated the risk of consumer confusion and misrepresentation.
The Bench comprising Justice Tejas Karia held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte injunction. The Court opined that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff and that continued use of the impugned marks by the defendants would cause irreparable harm, both in terms of goodwill and loss of brand distinctiveness, that could not be compensated by damages.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and all acting for or on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or promoting goods under the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’, or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’, for any goods or services under Classes 12 and 37.
The defendants were directed to file replies within four weeks of service, with rejoinders to be filed thereafter. The case is listed for next hearing on 24 November 2025. The Court also ordered compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and disposed of applications concerning exemption from pre-institution mediation and for filing additional documents.
Relied on:
Yamini Manohar vs TKD Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382- for exemption from pre-institution mediation
Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Kanishk Kumar, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Mr. Priyansh Kohli and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates.
For the Defendants: ex-parte
