Wipro Enterprises Private Limited vs Veepro Lights And Decor

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 27.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010086772025
+ CS(COMM) 156/2025
WIPRO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Sucheta Roy and Mr. Rishabh
Rao, Advocates.
versus
VEEPRO LIGHTS AND DECOR .....Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J [ORAL]
I.A. 28116/2026 (Application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section
151 CPC by the plaintiff)
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking
pronouncement of judgment and decree against the defendant.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendant inter alia seeking
permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing off,
by using the trademark/tradename “VEEPRO” which is phonetically identical
and visually deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered and well-known
trade mark/trade name “WIPRO”.
3. It is stated that the plaintiff had been conducting its business under the
unique and inherently distinctive trademark “WIPRO” at least since the year
1977 through the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 1 of 8

4. It is also stated that the plaintiff, in order to statutorily safeguard its
rights over the trademark “WIPRO” has obtained various registrations of its
well-known trademark “WIPRO” and its formative trademarks falling under
various classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
Amongst all the trademark registrations in favour of the plaintiff, as listed in
Para 13 of the plaint, some of them are illustratively set out hereinbelow for
the sake of brevity:
S.
Trademar
Reg.
Clas
Date Of
Status
No.
k
No.
s
Application
1 563300 11 06-12-1991 Registered
2 351329
11 23-03-2017 Registered
6
3 360266
9, 11 31-07-2017 Registered
0
4 WIPRO
394168
11 11-09-2018 Registered
NEXT
7
5 WIPRO
495299
9, 11 22-04-2021 Registered
VESTA
3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 2 of 8

5. It is stated that the aforementioned registrations are valid, subsisting
and in full legal force as of date. By virtue of the provisions of the Act, the
plaintiff has the exclusive right to use its trademarks inter alia in respect of
the goods and services for which the aforesaid trademarks are registered.
Additionally, as mentioned in Section 31 of the Act, original registration of a
trademark is prima facie evidence as to its validity.
6. It is stated that vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Court in
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Shivam Udhyog & Anr., CS (COMM)
945/2025 , plaintiff’s trademark “WIPRO” has been declared as well-known
trademark within the meaning and scope of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has extensive sales with
respect to its products and services under the trademark/tradename “WIPRO”.
The sale figures commencing from the financial year 1994-95 till the year
2023-24 has been set out in Para 17 of the plaint. The sales figure for the
financial year 2023-2024 is stated to be INR 5,055.9 Cr.
8. Likewise, it is also the case of the plaintiff that it has invested
substantial amount of money in the marketing and advertising of its products
under the trademark ‘WIPRO’ over the course of years. The expenditure
incurred by the plaintiff towards marketing and advertising has been given in
Para 18 of the plaint, starting from the financial year 1994-1995 till the year
2022-2023. The expenditure on advertisement for the financial year 2023-
2024 is stated to be INR 702.2 Cr.
9. It is stated that the defendant, Veepro Lights and Décor, is also engaged
in the business of selling and rendering lighting and interior solution products.
It came to the notice of the plaintiff on 14.02.2025 that the defendant has a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 3 of 8

website i.e. https://www.veeproled.com, wherein the defendant is
prominently using the trademark and the tradename “VEEPRO”, and after
acquiring the aforesaid knowledge, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
10. Ms. Sucheta Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff
submits that this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025 restrained the defendants,
its proprietors, partners or directors etc. from using, selling, offering for sale,
supplying, advertising, exporting etc. any goods and services under the
trademark/tradename “VEEPRO” or any trademark/tradename which may be
identical or deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s trademark “WIPRO” so as
to cause infringement and passing off of the said mark. The relevant extract
of the order dated 21.02.2025 reads thus:
“44. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its
proprietors, partners or directors, as the case may be, their
principal officers, servants, distributors, dealers and agents, and
all others acting for and on behalf of the defendant, are restrained
from using, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising,
exporting, importing, directly or indirectly dealing in any goods
and services under the trade mark/ trade name “VEEPRO” or any
other trade mark/trade name which may be identical to or
deceptively similar with the plaintiff’s registered trade mark
“WIPRO”, so as to cause infringement of trade mark and passing
off of the plaintiff’s trade mark/ trade name “WIPRO”.
45. However, it is clarified that the defendant is at liberty to carry
on its business by adopting some other trade mark/name, which is
not identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered
trademark.”
11. She submits that the interim relief has been extended from time to time,
and is still continuing and subsisting. She also submits that the Local
Commissioner was also appointed vide order dated 21.02.2025, and his report
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 4 of 8

is on record.
12. She further submits that the summons issued against the defendant were
served on the defendant on 28.03.2025, but despite service, the defendant
never entered appearance. Accordingly, the defendant was proceeded against
ex parte vide order dated 06.10.2026. The attention of the Court has been
invited to the said order.
13. She states that prior thereto, the right of the defendant to file written
statement was also closed by the learned Joint Registrar vide order dated
22.09.2025.
14. She submits that since the defendant has neither entered appearance,
nor filed the written statement, all the averments made in the plaint by the
plaintiff have gone uncontroverted.
15. She contends that under similar circumstances, this Court has passed
the judgments by invoking the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Reliance has been placed by her on the decisions of the Coordinate Benches
of this Court in Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v. Wow Chinese, 2024
SCC OnLine Del 9162 and Castrol Limited v. Vivek Sen, Trading as Tridev
Auto Parts & Anr., CS (COMM) 32/2024 .
16. In Wow Momo Foods Private Limited (supra), the defendant despite
service had not appeared and the right of the defendant to file the written
statement was also closed, the Court, therefore, decreed the suit in favour of
the plaintiff and awarded a nominal cost of Rs.2 Lacs. Learned counsel for
the plaintiff submits that the amount only of Rs.2 Lacs was awarded possibly
for the reason that the plaintiffs therein had affixed court fee of Rs. 2 Lacs.
She contends that no Local Commissioner had been appointed by the Court
in the said case, unlike in the present suit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 5 of 8

17. Insofar as the decision in Castrol Limited (supra) is concerned, she
submits that not only a Local Commissioner was appointed, but the Local
Commissioner also seized goods which were bearing the offending
trademark. Accordingly, the Court invoking the provisions of Order VIII
Rule 10 CPC decreed the suit and also awarded damages and costs to the
extent of Rs. 7 Lacs.
18. Reference in this regard may also be had to the decision of yet another
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Disney Enterprises I.N.C. & Anr. vs.
Balraj Muttneja & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 781, wherein the Court
decreed the suit of the plaintiffs considering the fact that the defendants had
failed to file their written statement and were also proceeded ex-parte. The
relevant observation from the said decision reads thus:
“3. Summons of the suit were issued to Defendants 1 to 4 on 17-
12-2012 and vide order of the same date, an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction was granted against the defendants. This Court also
appointed two Local Commissioners to visit and inspect the
premises of Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 respectively for the
purpose of making an inventory of the infringing
goods/merchandise, if any found, and for seizing and sealing the
same. The Local Commissioners so appointed have in compliance
with the order dated 17-12-2012 filed their reports.
4. Though the defendants entered appearance through their
counsel on 1-2-2013 but remained unrepresented thereafter and
failed to file a written statement as well. The defendants were thus
directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 4-10-2013 and
the plaintiffs permitted to file affidavits by way of ex-parte
evidence.
5. The plaintiffs, despite having been granted sufficient time and
several opportunities, have failed to get their affidavits for leading
exparte evidence on record. However, it is not deemed expedient
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 6 of 8

to further await the same and allow this matter to languish, for
the reason that I have in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.
v. Gauhati Town Club held that where the defendant is ex parte
and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim
of the plaintiff, the time of the Court should not be wasted in
directing ex parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is
nothing but a repetition of the contents of the plaint .”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In the present case as well, there has been no appearance on behalf of
the defendant and the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. Further, the
defendant has not filed any written statement.
20. Furthermore, the plaintiffs being the registered proprietor of trademark
“WIPRO” in various forms, which has also been declared as well-known
trademark, are entitled to the protection of its statutory and common law
rights.
21. Therefore, having regard to the uncontroverted averments made in the
plaint, applying the rationale of Wow Momo Foods Private Limited (supra);
Castrol Limited (supra), as well as, Disney Enterprises I.N.C. (supra), this
Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to decree in terms of Order
VIII Rule 10 CPC and the plaintiff is also entitled to cost.
22. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has affixed
court fee of Rs.2 Lacs on the plaint and the Local Commissioner, who was
appointed by this Court, was also paid a fee of Rs. 2 Lacs. She submits that
the plaintiff is not pressing for any further damages except for the above costs
incurred by the plaintiff.
23. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against
the defendant in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c) and (d). Decree is also passed for
damages and cost in the sum of Rs.4 Lacs in favour of the plaintiff and against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 7 of 8

the defendant.
24. Let decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
25. The suit and the present application is disposed of in the above terms.
26. The date already fixed before the learned Joint Registrar i.e. 02.12.2026
stands cancelled.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026 / jg/ss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NARENDRA SINGH
ASWAL
Signing Date:31.10.2026
19:35:07
CS(COMM) 156/2025 Page 8 of 8