Delhi HC Bars VM Lubricant From Using ‘HIRO/HERO’ Marks, Awards Hero Companies ₹3 Lakh Damages And ₹5 Lakh Costs

The plaintiffs sued to restrain the defendant from using “HIRO / HERO” marks on lubricants, alleging that they were identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered “HERO” marks.

The Court had granted an ex parte interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner, who seized and sealed 948 products bearing the impugned marks.

The defendant’s written statement was rejected as filed beyond the 120-day limit for commercial suits, and the defendant was later proceeded against ex parte.

The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The Court found that the plaintiffs had established registrations for their marks and that the defendant was using the impugned marks on lubricants.

Order XIII-A of the CPC empowers the Court to grant summary judgment without recording evidence where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason for trial.

Under Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, documents for which no affidavit of admission or denial is filed are deemed admitted.

Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 identifies factors relevant to damages, including the injured party’s lost profits, the infringer’s profits, potential royalties or licence fees, duration of infringement, intention or neglect, and the infringer’s conduct.

The plaintiffs also cited Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, on the significance of the absence of specific denials, and ML Brother LLP v. Mahesh Kumar Bhuralal Tanna, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1452, on the evidentiary value of an unchallenged Local Commissioner’s report; these authorities were cited in submissions.

The Court treated the plaint’s averments as admitted because the defendant had not entered appearance or filed a written statement, and treated the plaintiffs’ documents as admitted in the absence of an affidavit of admission or denial.

The plaintiffs’ registrations and the Local Commissioner’s report and inventory established their rights and the defendant’s use of “HERO” and the deceptively similar “HIRO” on lubricants.

The Court found “triple identity” in the marks, product category, trade channels, and consumer base, making confusion as to source or commercial connection likely.

With no material explaining or justifying the defendant’s adoption of the marks, the Court found no triable issue and no real prospect of a successful defence.

For monetary relief, it found that the defendant’s exact profits and the plaintiffs’ precise loss could not be determined, and considered the seized quantity of goods and the degree of intention in fixing an award.

It permanently restrained the defendant and those acting on its behalf from dealing in industrial oils, lubricants, or accessories bearing “HIRO / HERO” or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ marks, in a manner causing infringement or passing off.

It awarded the plaintiffs ₹3,00,000 in damages and ₹5,00,000 in reasonable legal costs and directed that a decree sheet be drawn up.