The Delhi High Court has restrained the defendants, their directors, wholesalers, distributors and others acting for them from using, manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing, offering for sale, or distributing any goods or products bearing the plaintiff’s registered trademark “MOTHERSON” and device mark in any manner whatsoever, including on their website or advertising material, insofar as such use may amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark.
The Court held that where the plaintiff is the prior adopter, prior user, and prior registrant of an identical word mark and device mark, and the defendants subsequently adopt the same dominant mark without any apparent explanation, the plaintiff is entitled to interim protection against infringement and passing off. The Court applied the principle that prior adoption and registration entitle the trademark proprietor to injunction, and concluded that, because the plaintiff’s registered trademark included the word mark itself, Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act would justify a presumption of likelihood of confusion.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, that upon visual examination of the rival marks, that the plaintiff’s word mark “MOTHERSON” and device mark appeared on the defendants’ impugned marks and were identical in their dominant and prominent feature. The Bench noted that although the defendants’ marks contained additional elements such as abbreviations and the word “INDUSTRIES,” the dominant part remained “MOTHERSON,” and that this would be what struck the public at first instance.
The Bench also observed that the plaintiff’s registrations dated back to 2005 and its use was claimed from 1975, whereas the defendants had only sought registration in 2024 and 2025 on a “proposed to be used basis.” On that basis, the Bench held it safe to infer that the plaintiff was the prior adopter, prior user, and prior registrant of the mark “MOTHERSON” and its variants.
The Bench further noted that even though the defendants’ goods fell in a different class, there was nothing on record to explain how or why the defendants had coined the word “MOTHERSON” as their trademark. It accepted that the plaintiff had demonstrated long and continuous use and that “MOTHERSON” functioned as a source identifier exclusive to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff held registration not only for the device but also for the word mark, the Bench observed that Section 29(3) would aid the plaintiff and that confusion on the part of the public would be presumed.
Briefly, the plaintiff, M/s. Motherson through its partners, instituted a commercial trademark action against Motherson Industries Private Limited and another, seeking protection against alleged infringement and passing off of its registered mark “MOTHERSON” and allied device marks. The plaintiff asserted that it is a long-established business, founded in 1975, and that it has continuously used the mark “MOTHERSON” since Dec 02, 1975 in relation to its business and products. It relied on multiple trademark registrations in India across several classes, registration and continued use of the domain name “www.motherson.com” since Apr 30, 1997, and extensive commercial reputation built through revenue, advertisements, promotions, and social media presence.
The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants, stated to be sister concerns engaged in the medical devices space and wholesale trading of medical devices, had adopted “MOTHERSON” as part of their corporate identity, social media presence, website identity, and email address. The plaintiff also pointed to trademark applications made by the defendants on June 20, 2025 on a proposed-to-be-used basis, and alleged that the impugned logos and marks, including those used on products such as blood lancets, incorporated the plaintiff’s registered trademark in its entirety.
