The Delhi High Court dismissed Quantum Hi-Tech’s appeal and refused to grant interim injunction against LG Electronics India for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, upholding the Commercial Court’s findings and relying substantially on invalid registration and concealment of material facts by the appellant.
Quantum Hi-Tech adopted the mark ‘QUANTUM’ in 1992 and received registration in Class 9 for device marks relating to computer hardware and accessories. LG and related companies manufactured a wide range of electronics including TVs and applied for registration of different ‘QUANTUM’-related marks for use on a variety of products.
Quantum Hi-Tech filed a suit and interim injunction proceedings alleging unauthorized use and infringement of its ‘QUANTUM’ marks by LG and its related entities, as well as passing off. The appellant claimed exclusive rights over the word and device marks ‘QUANTUM’ in respect of computer and electronic goods, arguing LG’s marks such as QUANTUM, QUANTUM DISPLAY, as well as registered variations, were deceptively similar and caused market confusion. The requested relief sought to restrain LG from using all such marks for televisions, accessories, and other allied goods.
Quantum Hi-Tech’s application for interim injunction was initially granted but later vacated by the Commercial Court, which found two issues: lack of valid registration and no evidence of commercial use in India by LG. The subsequent impugned order dismissed Quantum’s application and allowed LG’s application for vacation. Quantum appealed to the High Court, leading to the present judgment.
Quantum emphasized its registration and dominant use of ‘QUANTUM’, arguing the likelihood of consumer confusion based on the “dominant part” principle. LG countered that Quantum’s word mark registration was invalid as the underlying trademark application had been filed for a device mark, not a word mark, and further argued there was no actual evidence of use, sale, or passing off by LG.
The Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla extensively analysed the suppression of material records, including Quantum’s own admissions in opposition proceedings and lack of clean hands. It held that Quantum concealed the real nature of its registration and failed to prove distinctiveness or exclusivity over ‘QUANTUM’ as a word.
The court ruled that Quantum had no valid word mark registration for ‘QUANTUM’ and its claims of exclusivity were inconsistent with its own affidavits filed in foreign opposition proceedings. Applying equity principles for interim relief, the bench found that Quantum approached the court with unclean hands and had actively suppressed documents critical to determining the scope of its rights.
The court explained the difference between infringement of a registered mark and passing off, and held no case for passing off was made out, given the absence of credible evidence of commercial use/public confusion. Even if a sustainable case for infringement of the device mark might have existed, the appeal failed on grounds of concealment and lack of bona fides. The court cited Supreme Court and Delhi HC precedents reaffirming “dominant part” and “anti-dissection” principles and their relevance for composite marks, but noted that documentary evidence undermined Quantum’s position for both infringement and passing off.
Ultimately, the court upheld the Commercial Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and declining Quantum’s request for interim injunction against LG.
Cases relied on:
1. Sathyanath v Sarojamani, (2022) 7 SCC 644
2. Seema Arshad Zaheer v Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 582
3. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v Shri Ambal & Co., (1969) 2 SCC 131
4. South India Beverages Pvt Ltd v General Mills Marketing Inc., 2015 (61) PTC 231 (Del)
5. Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701
6. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Vikas Khera, Ms. Sneha Sethia and Mr. Yash Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Sambhav Jain, Mr. Sidhant Oberoi and Ms. Sanya Srivastava, Advs.
