The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against Veepro Lights and Decor for using the mark ‘VEEPRO’, which the Court found phonetically identical and visually deceptively similar to Wipro’s registered trademark ‘WIPRO’.
Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the judgment, invoking Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), after the defendant failed to appear before the Court despite service of summons and did not file a written statement.
Wipro had approached the Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using ‘VEEPRO’ or any other mark deceptively similar to its registered trademark in connection with lighting and interior solution products. The company submitted that it had been using the ‘WIPRO’ trademark since at least 1977 through its predecessor-in-interest and held several registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also noted that Wipro’s trademark had previously been declared a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court in Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Shivam Udhyog & Anr. in October 2025.
Wipro stated that it came across the defendant’s website, www.veeproled.com, on February 14, 2025, where the mark ‘VEEPRO’ was prominently used. It subsequently instituted the present suit.
The Court had, by an interim order dated February 21, 2025, restrained the defendant from using, selling, advertising, importing or exporting goods and services under ‘VEEPRO’ or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Wipro’s trademark. The defendant was, however, permitted to continue its business under a different mark that was not deceptively similar to ‘WIPRO’.
Despite service of summons on March 28, 2025, the defendant did not enter appearance. Its right to file a written statement was closed on September 22, 2025, and it was subsequently proceeded against ex parte on October 6, 2026.
The Court observed that the defendant’s failure to appear and contest the suit had left the averments made by Wipro uncontroverted. It held that Wipro, being the registered proprietor of the trademark in various forms, was entitled to protection of its statutory and common law rights.
Accordingly, the Court decreed the suit in Wipro’s favour and awarded ₹4 lakh towards damages and costs against the defendant. The amount included ₹2 lakh paid as court fee and ₹2 lakh towards the Local Commissioner’s fee, as submitted by Wipro’s counsel.
