The Delhi High Court has asserted that where the rival marks are prima facie identical or deceptively similar in visual and textual presentation, and are used for the same or allied services catering to common consumers, the likelihood of confusion must be assessed from the standpoint of an ordinary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. In such circumstances, if the plaintiff shows prior rights, registration, and goodwill, then it deserves grant of ex parte ad interim injunction on the grounds of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.
The Court accordingly restrained the defendant from using HOD Diagnostics / Home of Diagnostics or any identical or deceptively similar mark and directed immediate removal of listings from websites and social media platforms.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed on a bare comparison of the rival marks, that the deceptive similarities were “more than apparent.” It noted that the defendant’s mark HOD was identical to the plaintiffs’ registered mark H.O.D, the only difference being the absence of dots, and that the expression Home of Diagnostics was deceptively similar to House of Diagnostics. The Bench further observed that the style, manner of writing, and presentation were likely to confuse or deceive consumers.
The Bench emphasized that the test to be applied was the similarity between the rival marks from the standpoint of an ordinary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. It further noted that both parties were providing the same services, namely diagnostics and allied services, and therefore the likelihood of confusion was higher because the consumer base would be common.
The Bench also observed that the plaintiffs had registered marks and appeared to have built substantial goodwill and reputation over the years, as demonstrated by their sales turnover and expenditure on advertisement and promotion. On that basis, the Bench held that the plaintiffs had prima facie established a strong case, that the balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that irreparable loss and injury would be caused if ex parte ad interim injunction were not granted.
Briefly, the plaintiffs, comprising House of Diagnostics LLP and its group entities, claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the marks HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS, H.O.D., and allied label marks in relation to diagnostic and pathology services, stating that the mark was conceived in 2008 and that plaintiff no. 1 adopted “H.O.D.” as part of its corporate name in 2013. They also relied on trademark registrations/applications, copyright claims in the artistic works, domain name ownership, extensive business operations, goodwill, sales, and promotional expenditure.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant, incorporated on November 08, 2019, was operating diagnostic services under the impugned marks HOD Diagnostics / Home of Diagnostics, which according to the plaintiffs were almost identical to their marks. The plaintiffs stated that they discovered the defendant’s listings in or around March 2026 on IndiaMart and social media platforms for identical diagnostic services, and further found that a trademark application filed by one of the defendant’s directors for HOME OF DIAGNOSTICS in Class 44 had been refused under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground of likelihood of confusion with the plaintiffs’ prior registered mark.
The plaintiffs also stated that a legal notice dated March 18, 2025 was issued to the defendant calling upon it to change its trade name and remove references to the impugned mark, but no response was received. On that basis, the suit and the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC were filed seeking ex parte ad interim injunction.
Appearances:
Advocates Vaibhav Vutts, Aamna Hasan, Anupriya Shyam, Aarya Deshmukh and Vaibhavi SG, for the Plaintiffs
NA, for the Defendants
