Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff’s suit, granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Castrol’s registered trademarks and trade dress.
On 6 November 2024, the Court issued an ad-interim injunction against the defendants. Defendants appeared only once, failed to file any written statement, and were subsequently proceeded ex parte, with the interim injunction made absolute on 11 September 2025.
Castrol, a BP Group company, has been using the CASTROL mark in India since 1911 and has extensive trademark registrations for “CASTROL” and “ACTIV.” The defendants, involved in the manufacture and sale of lubricants, adopted and sought to register marks strikingly similar to Castrol’s, including “CREMESTROL” and “MADMAXX ACTION,” and sold these products with confusingly similar packaging and branding.
Plaintiffs became aware of the defendants’ trademark applications and infringing use in 2023-2024, filed oppositions, and sent a cease-and-desist notice, but defendants refused to comply. They collected market samples, tracked online sales, and initiated both trademark opposition proceedings and direct cease-and-desist actions prior to filing suit.
Plaintiffs invoked Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking a permanent injunction for infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, unfair competition, and delivery up of infringing goods and materials.
The key claim was that the defendants were selling automotive lubricants under marks (“CREMESTROL,” “ACTION,” “MADMAXX ACTION”) and packaging deceptively similar to Castrol’s famous “CASTROL,” “ACTIV,” and “ACTIVE” marks and get-up. Plaintiffs asserted that the defendants were habitual infringers and not connected as business partners or distributors.
The Bench comprising Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora rejected the necessity of ex parte evidence given the verified plaint and affidavit on record, emphasizing that uncontested, supported pleadings suffice for injunctive relief. The court highlighted the defendants’ email as an admission and further evidence of no triable issue.
In result, the Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks (“CREMESTROL,” “ACTION,” “MADMAXX ACTION,” and any deceptively similar marks to “CASTROL,” “ACTIV,” and “ACTIVE”). Further, Rs. 5 lakh legal expenses were awarded to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were granted liberty to approach the Trademark Registry for further orders on withdrawal of the defendants’ marks.
Cases referred to:
1. Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508
2. Uflex Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2022) 1 SCC 165
3. Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Satish Kumar, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1378
4. Ebay Inc. v. Mohd. Waseem T/AS Shopibay and Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 3879
Appearances:
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms. V. Mohini and Mr. Udayvir Rana, Advocates
