Hero Investcorp Private Limited And Anr vs Vm Lubricant
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 29.10.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010150842023
+ CS(COMM) 243/2023 & IA No.7872/2023
HERO INVESTCORP PRIVATE LTD. & ANR .....Plaintiffs
versus
VM LUBRICANT .....Defendant
Advocates who appeared in these cases
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
IA No. 42169/2024
1. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Order
XIII-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(“ CPC ”), seeking a Summary Judgment.
2. The Plaintiffs have filed the present Suit for a decree of permanent
injunction restraining infringement of its Trade Marks, ‘HERO’,
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 1 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
‘
’, ‘
’, ‘
’ and ‘
,
(“ Plaintiffs’ Marks ”), damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up along
with other ancillary reliefs.
3. The dispute between the Parties, essentially pertains to the
Defendant’s use of the Marks, ‘HIRO / HERO’ (“ Impugned Marks ”)
which are identical and / or deceptively, phonetically and visually similar to
the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4. By order dated 01.05.2023, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim
injunction restraining the Defendant from using the Impugned Marks and
allowed the Plaintiffs’ application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC,
appointing a Local Commissioner. Pursuant to the appointment, the learned
Local Commissioner visited the Defendant’s premises at Plot No. 35,
Gandhi Estate, Navagam, Kamrej, Surat, Gujarat – 394180, on 08.05.2023,
and seized and sealed 948 products bearing the Impugned Marks.
5. The Defendant was thereafter served with a copy of the Plaint along
with all applications, the complete set of documents and the order dated
01.05.2023. Upon entering appearance, the Defendant filed its Written
Statement along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 153
days in filing the same. However, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), vide
order dated 03.07.2024, rejected the application for condonation of delay
and declined to take the Written Statement on record, as the maximum
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 2 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
permissible period of 120 days for filing a Written Statement in a
commercial suit had already expired.
6. Consequently, this Court, vide order dated 29.10.2026 recorded that
neither the learned Counsel for the Defendant nor anyone else representing
the Defendant had entered appearance and perusal of the ordersheets dated
18.08.2025, 20.08.2025, 25.08.2025, 09.02.2026 and 20.07.2026 also
indicated that none have appeared on behalf of the Defendant. The
Defendant was thereby directed to be proceeded ex parte .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
7. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:
7.1. The Plaintiffs are a group of companies and Plaintiff No. 2, Hero
MotoCorp Ltd. , formerly known as Hero Honda Motors Ltd. , is a
company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is
engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of motorcycles,
scooters and their parts and accessories under the Plaintiffs’ Mark,
‘HERO’ since 09.04.1985. The Plaintiffs also use the Plaintiffs’
Marks in relation to a diverse range of products, including
industrial oils and lubricants.
7.2. Since the year 1985, the Plaintiffs have been continuously,
extensively and widely manufacturing, marketing and selling their
two-wheelers in India under its Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘HERO’. All the
Plaintiffs’ products bear the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘HERO’ and are sold
across India and the globe, Plaintiff No. 2’s two-wheelers
prominently display the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘HERO’. The
advertisement expenditure incurred by Plaintiff No. 2 in respect of
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 3 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
its product, ‘Hero Genuine Oil’, during Financial Year (“ FY ”)
2021-2022 was ₹9.21 crores and the total sales of the said product
during FY 2021-2022 was ₹483.14 crores.
7.3. The Plaintiffs carry on its business activities under the Plaintiffs’
Mark, ‘HERO’ and Plaintiff No. 1 has been granted registration for
the Plaintiffs’ Mark, ‘HERO’ and its variants in India under
Classes 4, 9, 12, 16, 25, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 99 which are being
used continuously and uninterruptedly by the Plaintiffs till date.
The details of the registrations of the Plaintiffs’ Marks are set out
hereunder:
Trade Mark Class(es) Application
Date of
Registration
Valid upto
No.
4 2205777 15.09.2011 15.09.2031
(word mark)
12 235780 13.06.1966 13.06.2028
(word mark)
9, 12, 16,
25, 35, 36,
2191293 16.08.2011 16.08.2031
37, 4, 42
(H device)
9, 12, 16,
25, 35, 36,
2191294 16.08.2011 16.08.2031
(Device Mark)
37, 41, 42
and 99
4 2314273 12.04.2012 12.04.2032
(Device Mark)
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 4 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
4 2314274 12.04.2012 12.04.2032
(H device)
7.4. The Defendant, VM Lubricant , is engaged in the business of
manufacturing and sale of lubricants bearing the Impugned Marks
which are deceptively, phonetically and visually similar to the
Plaintiffs’ Marks. A comparison of the products bearing the
Plaintiffs’ Mark and Impugned Marks is as under:
Plaintiffs’ product Defendant’s product
7.5. The Defendant’s Written Statement has not been taken on record
and, consequently, there is no specific denial of the Plaintiffs’
allegations or any material placed by the Defendant to establish
that its use of the Impugned Marks constitutes fair use or is
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 5 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
otherwise lawful. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Balraj
Taneja v. Sunil Madan , (1999) 8 SCC 396, to submit that in the
absence of specific denials, the allegations of Trade Mark
infringement, read with the supporting evidence on record, would
constitute deemed admissions of the facts pleaded in the Plaint.
The Defendant has, therefore, failed to establish any legitimate
basis for adopting and using the Impugned Marks.
7.6. The Defendant, by adopting the Impugned Marks, which are
identical and / or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks, is
deceiving and misleading the public and consumers by
representing that its products are in some manner associated with
the Plaintiffs, despite no such association existing. Such adoption
is intended to enable the Defendant to earn unlawful profits by
misusing the goodwill and reputation vested in the Plaintiffs’
Marks, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiffs and
depriving them of legitimate business opportunities.
7.7. The report dated 10.05.2023 (“ LC Report ”) filed by the learned
Local Commissioner, along with the supporting photographs,
establishes that the Defendant was engaged in the manufacture and
sale of industrial oils and lubricants bearing the Impugned Marks.
Reliance was placed upon the decision in ML Brother LLP v.
Mahesh Kumar Bhuralal Tanna , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1452, to
submit that the unchallenged LC Report of the learned Local
Commissioner constitutes cogent evidence of the Defendant’s use
of the Impugned Marks in relation to products deceptively similar to
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 6 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
those of the Plaintiffs, thereby establishing infringement of the
Plaintiffs’ Marks.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
8. In view of the fact that the Defendant has not entered appearance and
no Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the Defendant, all the
averments made in the Plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since
no Affidavit of Admission / Denial has been filed on behalf of the Defendant
in respect of the documents filed with the Plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the
Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the same are deemed to have
been admitted.
9. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
for the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and the documents placed on record, the
Plaintiffs have established their rights in the Plaintiffs’ Marks. Plaintiff No.
1 is the registered proprietor of the Plaintiffs’ Marks across various classes,
and Plaintiff No. 2 is an authorised user of the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
10. The comparison of the Plaintiffs’ Marks with the Impugned Marks,
establishes that the Defendant has adopted the identical Mark, ‘HERO’ and
the deceptively similar Mark, ‘HIRO’ in relation synthetic engine oil for
motorcycles, namely, ‘Hero Genuine Oil’. Such use is likely to cause confusion
and deception amongst consumers and members of the trade, who may
associate the Defendant’s products with the Plaintiffs or believe that the
Defendant has some commercial connection with them. A perusal of the LC
Report and the inventory shows that the Defendant is selling infringing
products bearing the Impugned Marks which are identical to the Plaintiffs’
Marks.
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 7 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
11. This is a case of triple identity, where the Impugned Marks are
identical, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the
consumer base is identical to the Plaintiff’s Marks. The Impugned Marks
adopted and used by the Defendant is visually, phonetically, structurally and
deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks. To an unwary consumer of
average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the Marks are likely to
appear identical, thereby leading to confusion regarding the source or origin
of the goods.
12. Order XIII-A of the CPC empowers this Court to pass a Summary
Judgment without recording evidence if it appears that the defendant has no
real prospect of defending the claim. In the present case, the Defendant’s
Written Statement was not taken on record and the Defendant was
subsequently proceeded ex parte on 29.10.2026. No material has been
placed before this Court to explain or justify the adoption and use of the
Impugned Marks. The Plaintiffs’ evidence, including the registration
particulars and the LC Report, has thus remained unrebutted. Upon
consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that no triable issue
arises and that the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending
the Plaintiffs’ claim of infringement. The present Suit is, therefore, fit to be
proceeded against in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC.
13. Insofar as the prayer for damages / costs is concerned, Rule 20 of the
Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (“ IPD
Rules ”) provides for consideration of various factors while determining
damages, including the lost profits suffered by the injured party, profits
earned by the infringing party, the quantum of income which the injured
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 8 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
party may have earned through royalties or licence fees, the duration of
infringement, the degree of intention or neglect underlying the infringement
and the conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the damages being
incurred by the injured party.
14. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have claimed for damages of ₹3,31,800/-
on the basis of the price of the seized products bearing the Impugned Mark
recovered by the learned Local Commissioner, and costs of ₹7,69,873/- of
the Court fees, fees of the learned Local Commissioner and the legal fees
incurred, along with punitive damages worth ₹10,00,000/-. As the exact
profits earned by the Defendant or the loss suffered by the Plaintiffs cannot
be ascertained from the material placed on record, the quantum of seized
goods and the degree of intention underlying the infringement, as
contemplated under Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, this Court considers it
appropriate to award damages of ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) and
reasonable legal costs of 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) to the
Plaintiffs.
15. In view of the above, the present Application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 243/2023
16. In view of the order passed in IA 42169/2024 above, the present Suit
is decreed in terms of Prayers in Paragraph No. 59 (a), (b) and (g) of the Suit.
17. Accordingly, the Defendant, directors, proprietors, partners, assignees
in business, associates, affiliates, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers,
stockists, retailers, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are
restrained from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale advertising in
any manner including on the internet, e-commerce platforms and social
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 9 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10
media platforms, or directly or indirectly dealing in industrial oils, lubricant
and accessories bearing Impugned Marks, ‘HIRO / HERO’, and / or any
other Mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks,
‘HERO’, ‘
’, ‘
’, ‘
’ and
‘
, so as to cause infringement and / or passing off of the Plaintiffs’
Marks.
18. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiffs damages of ₹3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) and reasonable legal costs of ₹5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Only). Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.
19. The present Suit along with the pending Application stands disposed
of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2026
Vn
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 243/2023 Page 10 of 10
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
20:07:10