Introduction:

In a significant ruling reinforcing the sanctity of registered trademarks and discouraging deceptive trade practices, the Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining a Maharashtra-based manufacturer from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” on self-drilling screws and allied products. The decision was delivered on 23 December 2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, dismissing an appeal against an interim order passed by the Commercial Court at Shahdara. The dispute arose between Ganraj Enterprises, a manufacturer of screws, and Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of self-drilling screws and blind rivets. Landmark Crafts claimed statutory and proprietary rights over the registered trademark “HP”, tracing its use back to 1995 through predecessor entities, and alleged that Ganraj Enterprises’ adoption of “HP+” and “HP®+” for identical goods, coupled with similar packaging and unauthorised use of the ® symbol, amounted to rank infringement and passing off. The High Court’s judgment reiterates that at the interim stage, courts must strongly protect registered trademarks where prima facie infringement and likelihood of consumer confusion are evident.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellants:

Ganraj Enterprises, challenging the interim injunction, advanced multiple arguments questioning the very foundation of Landmark Crafts’ claim. The appellants contended that the respondent’s trademark registration for “HP” was not absolute in nature and was allegedly subject to territorial restrictions, particularly limited to Uttar Pradesh. On this basis, it was argued that Landmark Crafts could not claim exclusive nationwide rights over the mark so as to restrain the appellants’ activities in other parts of India. Ganraj Enterprises further asserted that it had been using the mark “HP+” bona fide since 2014, much prior to the institution of the suit, and that such use was honest, descriptive and independent, without any intention to ride on the goodwill of the respondent. The appellants also accused Landmark Crafts of fabricating documents relating to prior use and assignment of trademark rights from predecessor entities, urging the court to treat such claims with suspicion at the interim stage. It was submitted that the addition of the “+” sign sufficiently distinguished the appellants’ mark from “HP” and that “HP” itself was a common abbreviation, lacking inherent distinctiveness. Ganraj Enterprises argued that the Commercial Court had erred in mechanically granting an interim injunction without adequately balancing convenience, particularly when the appellants had built their business over several years. The appellants thus sought setting aside of the interim injunction, contending that no irreparable harm would be caused to Landmark Crafts if the restraint order were vacated during the pendency of the suit.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:

Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd. strongly defended the interim injunction, asserting that it was the registered proprietor of the “HP” trademark in Class 6 for self-drilling screws, with registrations dating back to 2007 and 2014, which were valid, subsisting and free from any territorial limitation in the later registration. The respondent traced the origin of the mark to 1995, highlighting continuous and extensive use across India, resulting in significant goodwill and brand recognition in the hardware and construction sector. Landmark Crafts argued that Ganraj Enterprises was manufacturing and selling identical goods using marks that were deceptively similar, namely “HP+” and “HP®+”, which visually, phonetically and structurally incorporated the respondent’s mark in its entirety. It was further contended that the appellants had not only copied the mark but had also replicated distinctive packaging elements, including colour schemes, the shikara boat motif and the “LE” acronym, thereby aggravating the likelihood of consumer confusion. A particularly serious allegation was the unauthorised use of the ‘®’ symbol by Ganraj Enterprises despite having no registered trademark, which, according to the respondent, amounted to a deliberate attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the appellants’ mark was registered. Landmark Crafts emphasized that once statutory registration is shown, Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 confers an exclusive right to use the mark and seek immediate relief against infringement. The respondent submitted that the balance of convenience lay entirely in its favour and that continued use of infringing marks would cause irreparable damage to its reputation and market goodwill.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully examining the pleadings, documents and rival submissions, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court. The Division Bench observed that at the interim stage, the existence of a registered trademark raises a statutory presumption of validity, and unless the registration is prima facie shown to be vulnerable, courts are bound to protect the registered proprietor’s rights. The Court rejected Ganraj Enterprises’ argument regarding territorial restriction, noting that Landmark Crafts’ later trademark registration for “HP” carried no geographical limitation, thereby entitling it to nationwide protection. On the issue of similarity, the Bench held that the marks “HP”, “HP+” and “HP®+” were practically identical, especially when used for identical goods such as self-drilling screws, squarely attracting the infringement provisions under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court emphasized that the addition of a “+” symbol did not alter the essential feature of the mark and was insufficient to distinguish the appellants’ products from those of the respondent. The Bench took serious note of the appellants’ unauthorised use of the ‘®’ symbol, observing that such conduct demonstrated lack of bona fides and significantly enhanced the likelihood of deception and consumer confusion. It further found that the appellants had replicated key elements of Landmark Crafts’ trade dress, including logos, colour schemes and branding features, indicating a clear attempt to ride on the respondent’s goodwill. The Court categorically held that once there is a prima facie finding of infringement and a prima facie valid trademark registration, Section 28(1) entitles the plaintiff to immediate interlocutory relief. Characterising the conduct of Ganraj Enterprises as “rank infringement”, the Bench concluded that the appellants were not entitled to any equitable relief. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the interim order restraining Ganraj Enterprises from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” during the pendency of the suit was upheld.