Introduction:
The Delhi High Court was recently faced with a significant trademark infringement dispute between one of India’s largest two-wheeler manufacturers, Hero Motocorp Limited, and certain emerging electric two-wheeler companies including Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited and Galaxy EV, in the case titled Hero Motocorp Limited v. Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 832/2025. Hero Motocorp, known for its long-standing dominance in the automobile sector, approached the High Court alleging that the defendants were unlawfully using the marks “DESTINY”, “DESTINY+” and “DESTINY PRO” for their electric two-wheeler products, which it claimed were deceptively similar to its registered trademarks “DESTINY”, “DESTINI” and “DESTINI PRIME”. The company argued that the defendants’ adoption of these marks was not only a violation of trademark law but also an act of unfair competition and passing off, likely to mislead the average consumer into believing that there was some association, endorsement, or collaboration between Hero and these new players in the electric two-wheeler market. Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, after hearing the submissions, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks in any form, holding that Hero had made out a strong prima facie case of infringement and consumer confusion. The matter has now been listed for further proceedings on November 24, but the interim protection granted to Hero underscores the judiciary’s continuing emphasis on protecting intellectual property rights in the evolving electric mobility sector.
Arguments Presented by the Plaintiff:
Hero Motocorp, represented by advocates Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Mr. Kanishk Kumar, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Mr. Priyansh Kohli, and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, argued that it was the prior user and registered proprietor of the trademarks “DESTINY”, “DESTINI”, and “DESTINI PRIME”. The company emphasized that these marks had been registered in India under the relevant classes covering two-wheeler products and accessories. Hero contended that its marks had acquired immense goodwill and reputation in the market owing to its large-scale sales, extensive promotion, and brand recognition across the automobile sector. It was submitted that the defendants’ use of “DESTINY”, “DESTINY+” and “DESTINY PRO” was structurally, phonetically, and visually identical or deceptively similar to Hero’s registered marks, and therefore, it was not a case of innocent adoption but rather a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the reputation of a well-established brand.
The plaintiff further argued that the defendants’ use of nearly identical marks for identical goods—two-wheelers—would inevitably lead to confusion in the minds of unwary customers. A consumer intending to purchase Hero’s “Destini” vehicle might easily be misled into believing that the defendants’ products were somehow associated with or endorsed by Hero. This, according to Hero, amounted to passing off and unfair competition in addition to direct infringement of statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Hero also pointed out that in certain instances, the defendants were using the mark “HERO” in their promotional and sales materials. This, the plaintiff contended, was a blatant case of misrepresentation, clearly intended to deceive consumers and ride upon Hero’s reputation. Such misrepresentation, the company argued, would not only mislead customers but also cause irreparable harm to Hero’s goodwill and market share. The adoption of such marks was, in their submission, mala fide and intended to exploit Hero’s established credibility in the market.
On the basis of these contentions, Hero sought an immediate injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or promoting any two-wheeler products under the impugned marks, asserting that monetary damages alone would not be sufficient to compensate for the reputational injury and dilution of its brand identity.
Arguments Presented by the Defendants:
Since the injunction was granted at an ex-parte stage, the defendants did not have the opportunity to present a detailed rebuttal before the court. However, from the nature of such disputes, it can be inferred that the defendants would likely argue along certain predictable lines when the matter is fully heard. First, they may claim that the word “DESTINY” is a common dictionary term, widely used in various contexts, and therefore should not be monopolized by a single company, particularly in relation to automobiles. They may argue that mere similarity in marks does not automatically amount to infringement unless there is clear evidence of consumer confusion.
Secondly, the defendants may attempt to assert that their adoption of “DESTINY”, “DESTINY+” and “DESTINY PRO” was an independent and bona fide choice, perhaps inspired by the common word “destiny” which has a general aspirational and positive connotation, rather than a deliberate attempt to imitate Hero’s branding. They may also emphasize that their target consumers are more discerning and aware, especially in the rapidly growing electric two-wheeler sector, which could mitigate the possibility of confusion.
Another possible line of defense would be that their branding, product design, and overall trade dress are sufficiently distinct from Hero’s offerings, and therefore consumers would not mistake their products for those of Hero Motocorp. The defendants may also challenge the scope of Hero’s registered marks, arguing that Hero’s registration is specifically for “Destini” and “Destini Prime”, and not the exact term “Destiny”. This could give rise to a technical argument regarding the scope of protection available under the Trade Marks Act.
Additionally, the defendants may raise an argument regarding the public interest in competition, claiming that in a developing sector like electric mobility, new players must be allowed to adopt commonly used terms to brand their products, and that granting monopolistic control over such terms to one dominant player could stifle innovation and competition. However, these arguments remain speculative until the defendants file their formal written statement and make submissions before the court.
Court’s Judgment and Observations:
Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, after considering the submissions of Hero Motocorp, held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The court observed that Hero was indeed the registered proprietor and prior user of the trademarks in question and that its marks had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market. The court found that the defendants’ adoption of “DESTINY”, “DESTINY+” and “DESTINY PRO” was virtually identical and deceptively similar to Hero’s registered marks “DESTINY”, “DESTINI”, and “DESTINI PRIME”.
The court agreed with Hero’s contention that such use was likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public, particularly because the marks were being used for identical goods—two-wheelers. The likelihood of an unwary consumer associating the defendants’ products with Hero was deemed to be high, and the court found that this could result in irreparable harm to Hero’s reputation and market share.
Importantly, the court also took note of Hero’s submission that the defendants were, in some instances, using the mark “HERO” itself, thereby perpetuating misrepresentation. The court held that such conduct could not be allowed to continue, as it would not only mislead customers but also constitute a serious case of passing off and unfair competition.
Accordingly, the High Court passed an order restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks “DESTINY”, “DESTINY+” and “DESTINY PRO” or any other mark deceptively similar to Hero’s registered trademarks in relation to identical or cognate goods or services. The order was granted on an interim basis, pending a full hearing of the matter. The case has now been listed for November 24, when the defendants will have the opportunity to present their defense and the court will take a more detailed view of the dispute.
This order underscores the judiciary’s proactive approach in protecting established trademarks, particularly in the automobile sector where brand identity and consumer perception play a crucial role in influencing purchase decisions. It also highlights the court’s recognition of the importance of intellectual property rights in an era where the automobile industry is undergoing a paradigm shift towards electric mobility and sustainability. By granting interim relief, the court ensured that Hero’s brand reputation remains protected until the matter is finally adjudicated.