The Delhi High Court has treated ‘VOLVO’ as a coined, inherently distinctive mark not found in any English dictionary, with the prefix ‘MAX’ being a commonplace laudatory expression that does not detract from the dominant element. The Court explained that substitution of ‘W’ for ‘V’ in ‘MAX VOLWO’ was held visually near-identical and practically indistinguishable when spoken, since ‘V’ and ‘W’ are commonly pronounced alike.
The case was placed within Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the impugned marks are not identical with the registered mark in the strict sense, with the Court declining to invoke the Section 29(3) presumption at this stage. The Court also found that advance notice would defeat the object of the injunction, given the defendant’s cash dealings, substantial stock, shift from the GST-registered address, and readiness to despatch goods across State lines including to Delhi. The defendant was directed to take down all listings, including the IndiaMART listing, within one week.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the mark ‘MAX VOLVO’ reproduces the plaintiff’s mark ‘VOLVO’ in its entirety, with the prefix ‘MAX’ being a commonplace, laudatory expression suggesting superlative quality, which does not detract from ‘VOLVO’ being the dominant and distinctive element. The mark ‘MAX VOLWO’ differs from ‘MAX VOLVO’ only in the substitution of the letter ‘W’ for ‘V’, making the two marks visually near-identical and practically indistinguishable when spoken, since the sounds represented by ‘V’ and ‘W’ are commonly pronounced alike. A purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely to perceive ‘MAX VOLWO’ as nothing but a variant of ‘VOLVO’.
The Court further observed that the goods in question are identical, as the defendant deals in lubricants (engine oil and gear oil) and each of the plaintiffs’ registrations covers goods in Class 4, sold through the same trade channels to the same class of purchasers (vehicle owners, mechanics and workshops). Since the impugned marks are not identical with the registered mark in the strict sense, the case falls within Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Court need not, at this stage, invoke the presumption under Section 29(3).
On the question of delay and acquiescence, the Court noted that the plaintiffs became aware of the IndiaMART listing in April 2026 and did not remain passive thereafter, as the investigation continued through the site visit, the discovery of the defendant’s trademark application, the filing of the protest letter dated June 29, 2026, and the quotation obtained on July 03, 2026. The filing of a protest letter before the Trade Marks Registry was held to be an assertion of the plaintiff’s rights, inconsistent with any plea of acquiescence, and mere delay was held insufficient to defeat the grant of an injunction.
The Court further observed that the object of the injunction would be defeated if notice were to precede it, given that the defendant deals in cash, holds substantial stock of infringing goods, has shifted its premises from the GST-registered address, and is prepared to despatch goods across State lines, including to Delhi, creating a reasonable apprehension that advance notice would enable dispersal of the infringing stock into the market. The injury likely to be caused to the plaintiffs was held not adequately compensable in damages, as continued sale of lubricants under the impugned marks threatens to erode the distinctiveness of a coined mark used for over a century, and any deficiency in the defendant’s product quality is likely to be attributed to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendant’s use of the impugned marks was observed to be of recent origin (GST registration April 2024, trade mark application July 2024), and the injunction does not prevent the defendant from carrying on its business under any other non-infringing mark.
Briefly, Aktiebolaget Volvo (a Swedish public limited company incorporated in 1915), along with Volvo Trademark Holding AB and Volvo Car Corporation, filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against M/s Pooja Lubricant, a sole proprietorship concern of one Mr. Ganesh operating from Pune, seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain the alleged infringement of their registered trademark ‘VOLVO’.
The plaintiffs claim that ‘VOLVO’ is a coined and inherently distinctive word, not found in any English dictionary, which has been used since 1915 and recognised as a well-known trademark in India pursuant to the Bombay High Court judgment in Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Ltd. [1998 PTC (18) 47 (Bom) (DB)]. For the present application, the plaintiffs placed reliance on six registrations standing in the name of Plaintiff No. 2, each covering goods in Class 4.
The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant has been manufacturing and selling lubricants and allied goods under the marks ‘MAX VOLVO’ and ‘MAX VOLWO’, which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered mark ‘VOLVO’. In April 2026, the plaintiff’s investigator came across an IndiaMART listing at ‘https://www.indiamart.com/maxvolwo/’ displaying the impugned products, and on April 05, 2026, visited the defendant’s office-cum-warehouse at Uruli Dewachi, Pune, where approximately 100–120 bottles/buckets of ‘MAX VOLVO’ and around 200 bottles/buckets of ‘MAX VOLWO’ products were observed, and a carton of 20 bottles was purchased for INR 3,900 in cash.
In June 2026, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant had filed a trademark application, which was objected to and remains unregistered, against which the plaintiffs filed a protest letter before the Trade Marks Registry. Later, the defendant sent a handwritten quotation of INR 15,980 for ‘Volwo Gold’ branded products, indicating readiness to supply goods to Delhi upon receipt of GST registration details.
