Holding that VOLVO is a well-known and inherently distinctive mark, the Delhi High Court has restrained an elevator components business from using the mark and found a strong prima facie case of infringement, passing off, confusion and dilution. Essentially, till the next date of hearing, the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf were restrained from using the impugned marks and any other trade name or trademark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered and well-known trademark VOLVO and its formative marks in relation to the impugned goods, including elevators.
The Court explained that where a plaintiff establishes prior adoption, statutory registration, long-standing reputation and well-known trademark status in a coined and inherently distinctive mark, the Court can protect that mark even against use in relation to dissimilar goods. Where, in addition, the defendant’s goods are allied and cognate to the plaintiff’s registered class of goods, and the defendant has adopted a mark incorporating the plaintiff’s mark in its entirety, a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off is made out.
The Court held that in such circumstances, visual deceptive similarity, phonetic identity, likelihood of public confusion, brand dilution, and misrepresentation of association are sufficient to justify interim injunctive relief. The Court also applied the settled interim injunction test and held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if relief was denied.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted, at the prima facie stage, that the plaintiffs had shown a strong case for protection of the VOLVO mark. It recorded that Plaintiff No. 1 had executed a Global Deed of Assignment in favour of Plaintiff No. 2, which became the subsequent proprietor of the trademark, and that Plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 were licensed users. The Court accepted the plaintiffs’ case that the mark “VOLVO” had been adopted in 1915, that it is not found in any authoritative English dictionary, and that it is therefore inherently distinctive. The Court also observed that because of continuous, extensive and uninterrupted use, the plaintiffs had acquired common law rights, while registrations gave them statutory protection as well.
The Court further observed that the VOLVO mark has well-known trademark status in India, and on that basis the plaintiffs are entitled to restrain third parties from using the mark even for dissimilar goods and across classes. In addition, the Court found it significant that the plaintiffs also held registration in Class 07 covering goods such as shafts, shaft seals, gear wheels, springs, gear boxes, pulleys, drive chains and belts, which the Court considered allied and cognate to the defendant’s elevator components and spare parts. This strengthened the plaintiffs’ case even on product proximity, apart from the mark’s well-known status.
On comparison of the rival marks, the Court held that the defendant had adopted marks which subsumed and incorporated the plaintiffs’ well-known mark VOLVO in its entirety. The Court found the marks visually deceptively similar and phonetically identical, with “VOLVO” being the dominant feature. It also observed that, given the immense reputation of the VOLVO mark, there was a likelihood of confusion among members of the public. The Court prima facie accepted the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendant’s adoption was intended to misrepresent an association with the plaintiffs and to ride on their goodwill and reputation.
The Court also took note of the plaintiffs’ substantial goodwill, revenues, promotional spending, social media presence and brand recognition. It observed that the defendant’s use of the impugned marks was causing irreparable damage to the plaintiffs and was diluting the distinctiveness of the VOLVO mark. On that basis, the Court prima facie held that the defendant’s conduct amounted not only to infringement of the plaintiffs’ registered and well-known trademark, but also to passing off.
Briefly, a trademark infringement and passing off suit was filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo and related plaintiff entities against M/s Shree Vishwakarma Engineering Works. The plaintiffs stated that they are part of the Volvo group, a globally known automotive and transport vehicle business operating across multiple markets, and that Plaintiff No. 3 also carries on business in India through dealerships. They claimed long and extensive use of the trademark and trade name “VOLVO” since May 11, 1915. According to the plaint, “VOLVO” is a coined and inherently distinctive word, not found in the English dictionary, and the plaintiffs have both common law rights and statutory rights in the mark through multiple registrations, including in India, where the earliest registration dates back to Sep 10, 1975 in Class 07.
The plaintiffs further stated that the VOLVO mark enjoys very substantial reputation and goodwill worldwide and in India. They pointed out that the mark is included in the list of well-known trademarks in India pursuant to a Bombay High Court judgment, and therefore deserves the highest level of protection even across different classes of goods and services. They also referred to their websites and domain names using the VOLVO mark, their sales figures, and the significant advertising and promotional expenditure incurred globally to demonstrate the strength, recognition and commercial value of the brand.
The grievance against the defendant was that it was manufacturing and selling elevator components and spare parts, and was allegedly using the “VOLVO” mark and logo on those products and in its business presence. The plaintiffs said the defendant was offering such goods through its own website and online platforms such as Indiamart, and was presenting itself as using the “volvo” brand since either 2001 or 2014, depending on the platform. The plaintiffs also relied on a market survey conducted in March 2026 and a physical investigation at the defendant’s Ahmedabad premises, where the investigator was told that the defendant manufactured elevator components and that a sister concern handled assembly and installation. The plaintiffs alleged that stickers bearing the impugned logo were affixed to the products, and that the defendant’s business card, third-party website listings, Instagram handle and Facebook posts all reflected use of “Volvo” in relation to its elevator business.
