The Delhi High Court has held that where, in a commercial trademark suit, the plaintiff pleads and places material to show statutory rights in a registered trademark, goodwill and reputation in the mark, and prima facie demonstrates that the defendants are using an identical or deceptively similar mark/logo/trade dress in relation to identical or allied services in a manner likely to cause confusion, dilution, and passing off, the Court may grant ex parte ad interim injunction upon being satisfied that a prima facie case exists, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and irreparable harm is likely to ensue if protection is denied.
Accordingly, the High Court restrained the defendants from using the mark “BHARATBENZ” or any deceptively similar mark, logo, label, device, insignia, design or trade dress in relation to buses and allied/cognate services, amounting to infringement and/or passing off.
The Court further pointed out that exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is liable to be granted where urgent relief is prayed for. In a case seeking urgent interim injunctive relief in a trademark infringement and passing off action, the bar of pre-institution mediation does not operate.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh first recorded that the suit involved a prayer for urgent relief and, on that basis, granted exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In doing so, the Bench expressly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi [(2024) 5 SCC 815], as also the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd. [2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529].
On the plaintiff’s substantive case, the Bench set out at length the plaintiff’s historical lineage, the global footprint of Daimler, the establishment and Indian operations of the plaintiff, the adoption and use of the BHARATBENZ brand, the asserted relationship between BHARATBENZ and the BENZ mark, the status of BENZ as a well-known trademark, and the plaintiff’s registrations, commercial presence, sales and advertising expenditure. By recording these pleadings in detail, the Bench indicated that the plaintiff had placed material to establish the pedigree of the mark, its subsistence on the register, its goodwill, reputation, and distinctiveness, all of which were relevant for assessing both infringement and passing off.
The Bench also noticed the plaintiff’s specific allegation that the impugned buses bore the mark BHARATBENZ and the plaintiff’s logo on the front grille, even though the steering wheel bore the logos/emblems of another manufacturer, Leyland, and that the impugned vehicle, shown in a video on X, did not follow safety norms such as having an emergency exit and lacked air suspension and other amenities. The Bench further noted the investigation that connected the impugned activity to Defendant No. 1’s websites, namely ‘www.getbookbus.com’ and ‘www.getbookcab.com’, where an image of a bus bearing the three-star logo associated with Mercedes-Benz appeared and “Bharat Benz” was mentioned as a bus type on the booking page, and that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were advertising bus booking services under the BHARATBENZ mark on online travel platforms. These facts were material because they demonstrated not only use of the impugned mark in the course of trade, but use in relation to bus booking and passenger transport services in a manner capable of misleading consumers.
Consequently, the Bench restrained the Defendants No. 1 to 3, including John Doe, their proprietors, partners, directors, officers, servants, agents, representatives, distributors, franchisees, affiliates, stockists, transporters and all others acting for and on their behalf, till the next date of hearing, from using, manufacturing, marketing, offering for sale, supplying, deploying, displaying, advertising in any form, or in any other manner dealing with buses or any other allied and cognate services using the mark “BHARATBENZ”, or any other mark, name, logo, label, device, insignia, design or trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “BHARATBENZ”, including the device mark, back-end or front-end configuration, amounting to infringement of trademarks and/or passing off. The Bench also directed the plaintiff to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks.
Briefly, the plaintiff pleaded that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler Truck AG, one of the world’s largest commercial vehicle manufacturers, with more than 100,000 employees at more than 40 locations in North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America and numerous sales and service locations across the world. The plaintiff was established in 2008 with the mission of designing and manufacturing commercial vehicles suited to Indian terrain and customers, operates under Daimler Trucks Asia, and is a full-fledged commercial vehicle player in India with the home-market brand BHARATBENZ. The plaintiff stated that it commenced use of BHARATBENZ in 2011 and has secured numerous registrations for BHARATBENZ word, logo and device marks in various classes in India, all valid and subsisting.
As regards the defendants, it was stated that Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies with two directors as per the MCA website; Defendant No. 2 is a sole proprietorship of Pooran Chand Yadav based at Delhi; Defendant No. 3 trades under the name Bheru Nath Motor Body and is engaged in manufacture and fabrication of buses and bus bodies, with clientele including companies and organisations providing inter-city bus travel in India; Defendants No. 1 and 2 are also clients of Defendant No. 3 and operate passenger bus services using buses manufactured by Defendant No. 3; and Defendant No. 4 comprises unknown entities engaged in manufacture or sale of buses misusing the plaintiff’s BHARATBENZ trademark.
The immediate cause of action pleaded was that around the end of November 2025, the plaintiff came across a video on the social media platform X showing a third-party bus bearing the mark BHARATBENZ and the logo on the front grille, whereas the steering wheel bore logos and emblems of a completely different manufacturer, “Leyland”. The video further showcased that the bus did not follow safety norms such as having an emergency exit and lacked features like air suspension and other amenities. The bus bore registration number AR20 D9003 and displayed the website ‘www.getbookbus.com’ on its side with the text “India Tours and Travels”. On investigation, the plaintiff discovered that Defendant No. 1 was active on the websites ‘www.getbookbus.com’ and ‘www.getbookcab.com’, promoting and booking buses and soliciting business, and that the landing page carried an image of a bus with the three-star logo associated with Mercedes-Benz while the booking page specifically mentioned “Bharat Benz” as a bus type. It was further discovered that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were fraudulently advertising bus booking services under the BHARATBENZ mark on online platforms such as Ease My Trip and Make My Trip.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Advocates Pravin Anand, Vaishali Mittal, Siddhant Chamola and Jitesh P. Gupta
For the Defendant: NA
