Introduction
In the competitive world of industrial and household products, a brand name is often the most valuable asset a business possesses. When a competitor adopts a name, logo, and artistic style that is virtually indistinguishable from an established brand, the law of trademarks and copyright steps in to protect the original creator.
This case, decided by the High Court of Delhi on 29 May 2026, presents a fascinating intersection of trademark law, copyright protection, passing off, and the doctrine of prior user, all arising from a dispute over two marks that differ by just one letter: KOANAFLEX and KONAFLEX, both used on plastic water storage tanks sold to ordinary consumers across India.
The case raises important questions about what happens when a long-established business discovers that a newer entrant has not merely copied its brand name but has also replicated its logo font, letter styling, colour scheme, and product presentation in a manner so close that even an attentive observer would struggle to tell the two apart.
Key Legal Issues in the Dispute
- Trademark infringement.
- Copyright protection of artistic works and logos.
- Passing off and consumer deception.
- Rights of a prior user versus a subsequent adopter.
- Similarity of competing marks differing by only one letter.
- Protection of trade dress, colour combinations, and overall product presentation.
Competing Trademarks at the Centre of the Case
| Particulars | Established Brand | Alleged Infringing Brand |
|---|---|---|
| Trademark | KOANAFLEX | KONAFLEX |
| Industry | Plastic Water Storage Tanks | Plastic Water Storage Tanks |
| Nature of Dispute | Claim of Prior Rights | Alleged Adoption of Similar Mark |
| Issues Raised | Trademark, Copyright, Passing Off | Use of Similar Name, Logo and Trade Dress |
Significance of the Case
The dispute is significant because it demonstrates how trademark protection extends beyond the mere comparison of words. Courts also examine the overall commercial impression created by competing products, including their logos, artistic features, colour combinations, packaging, and visual presentation. Where similarities are substantial, the likelihood of consumer confusion becomes a central consideration.
The case further illustrates the importance of protecting brand goodwill in highly competitive consumer markets, where purchasing decisions are often made quickly and consumers may rely on imperfect recollection rather than a detailed comparison of competing products.
Factual And Procedural Background
The plaintiff, M/s Modern Pipe Industries, is a partnership firm presently comprising two partners, Mr Rajiv Kumar Nayar and Mr Mohit Nayar. The firm traces its origins to 1988, when what was then a partnership firm – also bearing the name M/s Modern Pipe Industries – commenced business in the manufacture and sale of hose pipes and allied products.
Over the following decades, the original partnership saw changes:
- Three partners retired in 2003.
- Mr Rajiv Kumar Nayar thereafter continued alone as a sole proprietor.
- The current partnership firm was reconstituted in 2013.
The plaintiff thus claims to be the successor-in-interest of the original 1988 firm and asserts continuous operation under that name for over three and a half decades.
Origin And Adoption Of The KOANAFLEX Trademark
The trademark at the heart of the dispute is KOANAFLEX. According to the plaintiff, this mark was coined and adopted in 1988 as a creative combination of the Hindi word “KOANA” (meaning “corner”) and the English word “FLEX” (denoting flexibility), originally conceived for use on flexible hose pipes that could bend at corners.
The word mark was also rendered in Hindi script on products.
The plaintiff states that it initially registered the mark KOANAFLEX in Class 21 (which covers household articles and containers), and that registration remained valid until it lapsed in 2009, attributed to health issues suffered by the proprietor. The mark was subsequently re-registered in Class 21, with fresh registration granted by the Trade Marks Registry on 12 April 2024.
Growth Of The Business And Product Expansion
From modest beginnings with four employees and a single machine, the plaintiff grew into one of the leading manufacturers in the PVC pipe industry, now operating over 25 machines in a facility exceeding 60,000 square feet.
Its product range expanded significantly under the KOANAFLEX brand to include the following:
- Garden pipes and hoses in more than nine varieties
- Lay flat tubes
- Borewell pipes
- PVC agricultural pipes
- PVC electrical conduit pipes
- UPVC plumbing pipes and fittings
From 2023 onwards, the plaintiff also ventured into the manufacture and sale of plastic water storage tanks under the same mark.
Authorised Use Of The KOANAFLEX Mark
The plaintiff also permitted two other entities — M/s NYR Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Future Plastics Industries — to use the KOANAFLEX mark under its authority.
Both entities issued formal certificates and no-objection letters on record, acknowledging that they were not owners of the trademark and that their use was entirely based on permission granted by M/s Modern Pipe Industries.
The mark was also created in a stylised artistic form in 2018, displayed prominently in a distinctive yellow-background logo, and social media promotion of the brand began in 2021.
Defendant And Alleged Adoption Of KONAFLEX
The defendant, Mr Rajkumar Maurya, operates a proprietorship firm called M/s Satyam Industries from Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.
The plaintiff claims that back in 2022, the defendant had actually approached the plaintiff seeking a dealership for KOANAFLEX products, a request which was refused owing to existing business arrangements.
By late August and September 2025, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had begun selling plastic water storage tanks under the mark KONAFLEX – a name that is identical to KOANAFLEX except for the omission of the letter “A”.
The plaintiff also alleged that the defendant had copied its logo and overall artistic style.
Institution Of The Suit
The plaintiff filed the present suit — CS(COMM) 1402/2025 — before the High Court of Delhi for trademark infringement and copyright infringement, accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking an interim injunction.
A separate cancellation petition C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 was also filed before the same court. The applications were heard together.
Case At A Glance
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | M/s Modern Pipe Industries |
| Current Partners | Mr Rajiv Kumar Nayar and Mr Mohit Nayar |
| Business Origin | 1988 |
| Disputed Trademark | KOANAFLEX |
| Defendant | Mr Rajkumar Maurya, M/s Satyam Industries |
| Defendant’s Mark | KONAFLEX |
| Nature of Suit | Trademark Infringement and Copyright Infringement |
| Suit Number | CS(COMM) 1402/2025 |
| Cancellation Petition | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
The Dispute
The core dispute is relatively straightforward in its facts, though legally nuanced in its resolution.
The plaintiff asserts that it has been using the mark KOANAFLEX continuously since 1988; has built up enormous goodwill and reputation over more than three decades; adopted a stylised artistic logo of the mark in 2018; and entered the water storage tank market from March 2023.
The defendant, on the other hand, applied for registration of the word mark KONAFLEX on 12 April 2024 and, separately, for the device mark (logo) KONAFLEX on 9 October 2025, both applications being on a “proposed to be used” basis — meaning the defendant had not even claimed prior use at the time of filing.
The first invoice showing the defendant’s actual sale of goods under the KONAFLEX mark is dated 27 January 2025.
Plaintiff’s Grievances
The plaintiff’s grievance is twofold.
- The word ‘KONAFLEX’ is deceptively similar — differing by only one letter — to the plaintiff’s registered word mark ‘KOANAFLEX’.
- The artistic style of the defendant’s KONAFLEX logo is almost a replica of the plaintiff’s KOANAFLEX logo:
- Same thick lettering
- Same stylised font
- Same slight gap between particular letters
- Same black lettering on white background when placed on water tanks
Defendant’s Defence
The defendant contested the suit on multiple grounds.
- It argued that the plaintiff’s original trademark registration had lapsed and was not validly subsisting.
- It pointed to a suit filed by a third party against the plaintiff, alleging that even the plaintiff was an infringer of the mark KANAFLEX, suggesting the plaintiff’s own title to the mark was under a cloud.
- It challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing both parties are based in Uttar Pradesh and no cause of action had arisen in Delhi.
- It challenged the plaintiff’s copyright claim, saying there was insufficient documentary proof that the plaintiff had actually created the artistic logo work.
- It offered its own explanation for adopting KONAFLEX:
- Water tanks are placed in corners (“KONA” in Hindi) of terraces.
- The tanks are made of flexible material, hence “FLEX”.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The court framed its analysis around the well-established “triple test” applicable to interim injunction applications:
| Requirement | Consideration by the Court |
|---|---|
| Prima Facie Case | Whether the applicant has established a strong initial case. |
| Balance of Convenience | Whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the applicant. |
| Irreparable Harm | Whether irreparable harm would result if no injunction is granted. |
At this interlocutory stage, the court emphasised that no mini-trial of evidence is conducted; only a general examination of the merits suffices.
Comparison of KOANAFLEX and KONAFLEX Marks
On the question of similarity of marks, the court undertook a visual comparison of the plaintiff’s mark KOANAFLEX and the defendant’s mark KONAFLEX and found the resemblance to be striking. Except for the single letter “A” in KOANAFLEX, the marks are virtually identical in appearance.
The court noted that the phonetic similarity between the two marks is also uncanny. Looking at the stylised logos as placed on the actual products, water storage tanks, the court found that even a careful observer would struggle to distinguish one from the other unless examining them very closely.
The following similarities were highlighted:
- Identical font style.
- Similar letter thickness.
- Slight gap between specific letters.
- Use of dark colour on a white background.
- Near-identical overall presentation and placement.
The court concluded unambiguously that KONAFLEX is deceptively similar to KOANAFLEX.
Consumer Confusion and Trademark Principles
The court also addressed the consumer confusion aspect with practical common sense. Water storage tanks are products purchased by ordinary members of the public, including plumbers, who may not scrutinise brand names minutely.
Applying the standard of an ordinary consumer of average intelligence with imperfect recollection, a test well-established in Indian trademark law, the court held that such a consumer would inevitably be confused into believing that the defendant’s goods emanate from the plaintiff.
Since the products themselves are identical and the trade channels and distribution networks would naturally overlap, the risk of confusion is all the more real.
This reasoning aligns with the test laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Neon Laboratories Ltd v. Medical Technologies Ltd & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 672, which the court applied to find that the plaintiff was “first in the market” and had priority over the defendant in respect of water storage tanks.
Copyright Claim in the KOANAFLEX Logo
On the copyright dimension, the defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to produce adequate documentary proof of having created the original artistic work in the KOANAFLEX logo.
The court acknowledged this argument but found it unpersuasive at the interim stage. It reasoned that the extensive actual use of the artistic mark substantiated by years of invoices, social media presence from 2021, and widespread commercial activity itself corroborates the prima facie claim that the plaintiff created and adopted the artistic work in 2018.
The court left a definitive determination of copyright ownership for the trial stage.
Effect of the Pending KANAFLEX Litigation
On the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s own mark was “under a cloud” because a third party had filed a suit against the plaintiff alleging infringement of the mark KANAFLEX, the court disposed of this contention efficiently.
It noted that the plaintiff had itself disclosed this pending suit fairly and voluntarily, which weighed in the plaintiff’s favour in terms of candour.
The court held that the mere pendency of such a suit could not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief against the defendant in the present proceedings.
The effect of any eventual judgement in that suit on these proceedings could be considered at the appropriate time.
Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge
The territorial jurisdiction challenge was addressed by relying on a very recent precedent of the Delhi High Court’s own Division Bench in Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., decided in FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025 on 3 December 2025.
That judgement held that where a party maintains an interactive website accessible from a particular location, the courts at that location have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.
The plaintiff had asserted that the defendant’s website was interactive and that the defendant had offered to deliver products in Delhi.
The court treated this as a mixed question of law and fact incapable of resolution at the interim stage without conducting a mini-trial, and relied on the Kohinoor Seeds principle to decline the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge for the present.
Adoption of the KONAFLEX Mark
A particularly interesting aspect of the court’s reasoning concerned the defendant’s explanation for adopting the mark KONAFLEX.
The defendant’s story that tanks are placed in corners (“KONA”) of terraces and made of flexible material (“FLEX”) was found to be almost a verbatim repetition of the plaintiff’s own explanation for coining KOANAFLEX.
The court found it inexplicable that while the defendant offered a linguistic justification for the word, it offered absolutely no explanation for the following:
- The font used in the mark.
- The stylisation of the logo.
- The letter thickness.
- The colour scheme.
- The placement of the mark on the product.
According to the court, these features were virtually identical to the plaintiff’s copyrighted artistic work. This, in the court’s assessment, pointed strongly to dishonest adoption by the defendant.
Goodwill, Prior Use and Commercial Reputation
The court also noted another significant evidentiary point: the defendant had applied for trademark registration on a “proposed to be used” basis, meaning, at the time of filing, the mark had not yet been used commercially.
The first actual invoice of sale under KONAFLEX dates only to January 2025. This contrasts sharply with the plaintiff’s use since 1988 and its water storage tank sales evidenced from March 2023.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Civil Appeal No. 2768 of 2023, decided on 14 September 2023, which held that at the interim injunction stage, courts need to appreciate the substantial goodwill of the plaintiff based on sales figures and promotional expenditure.
The plaintiff’s detailed financial data demonstrated substantial commercial reputation:
| Factor | Court’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Trademark Use | Since 1988 |
| Water Storage Tank Sales | Evidenced from March 2023 |
| Defendant’s First Sale Under KONAFLEX | January 2025 |
| Total Sales (2024–2025) | Crossed Rs. 13.25 crore |
| Advertising and Promotion | Consistent expenditure over more than a decade |
The court observed that the plaintiff’s consistent sales figures and advertising expenditures over more than a decade left little doubt about the substantial goodwill vested in the KOANAFLEX brand.
Balance of Convenience Favours the Plaintiff
On the balance of convenience, the court was persuaded by the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant would suffer no significant hardship from the injunction because the defendant was already selling water storage tanks under the entirely different brand SATYAM and could continue to do so.
The balance of convenience therefore tilted clearly in favour of the plaintiff.
Key Findings of the Court
- KONAFLEX was found deceptively similar to KOANAFLEX.
- Consumer confusion was highly likely due to identical goods and overlapping trade channels.
- The plaintiff established a strong prima facie case based on prior use and goodwill.
- The copyright claim in the artistic logo survived interim scrutiny.
- The pending KANAFLEX litigation did not bar relief in the present proceedings.
- The territorial jurisdiction objection was rejected at the interim stage.
- The defendant’s explanation for adopting KONAFLEX was found unconvincing.
- The balance of convenience strongly favoured the plaintiff.
Final Decision of the Court
The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant along with its proprietor, agents, representatives, employees, associated firms, affiliates, and all persons acting on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, advertising, or in any other manner using the trademark KONAFLEX or its associated logo or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark KOANAFLEX and its logo so as to cause confusion or convey a false impression of association amounting to passing off.
Separately, the defendant was also restrained from reproducing, communicating, or adapting the artistic work of the KONAFLEX logo or any substantially similar work so as to infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in the KONAFLEX artistic work.
Points of Law Settled in the Case
This judgement contributes meaningfully to several areas of intellectual property law. It reaffirms that in a passing off and copyright infringement suit, a plaintiff does not need a subsisting trademark registration to seek injunctive relief — prior use and established goodwill are sufficient.
Even where a trademark registration has lapsed and been re-obtained, the continuity of use remains a powerful indicator of entitlement.
Prior Use and Goodwill Sufficient for Relief
- A plaintiff does not need a subsisting trademark registration to seek injunctive relief.
- Prior use and established goodwill are sufficient.
- Continuity of use remains a strong indicator of entitlement, even if registration has lapsed and been re-obtained.
Test of Deceptive Similarity
The judgement settles that the test of deceptive similarity must be applied from the perspective of a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection, not a person who scrutinises marks minutely side by side.
A difference of a single letter in an otherwise identical word and logo is insufficient to escape the charge of deceptive similarity, particularly when the visual, structural, and phonetic presentation is near-identical.
Effect of Third-Party Litigation
It further reinforces that the pendency of a third-party suit against the plaintiff does not automatically bar the plaintiff from maintaining its own suit for an injunction, unless the third-party suit results in an adverse finding on the plaintiff’s title.
Territorial Jurisdiction and Interactive Websites
On territorial jurisdiction, the court applied the interactive website principle from the Division Bench ruling in Kohinoor Seeds to hold that Delhi courts could exercise jurisdiction if the defendant’s website was accessible and interactive from Delhi, even without proof of an actual completed sale in Delhi.
Standard for Grant of Interim Injunction
The court also clarified, citing Brihan Karan Sugar (supra), that at the interim injunction stage, the standard is whether the plaintiff’s goodwill is established through sales figures and promotional expenditure, not whether every aspect of its case has been proved conclusively.
This lowers the evidentiary threshold at the interlocutory stage while preserving the right of parties to contest the matter fully at trial.
Key Legal Principles at a Glance
| Legal Issue | Principle Settled by the Court |
|---|---|
| Passing Off | Prior use and goodwill can justify injunctive relief even without a subsisting trademark registration. |
| Trademark Registration | Lapse and subsequent restoration of registration do not defeat rights arising from continuous use. |
| Deceptive Similarity | Assessment must be from the perspective of a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. |
| Third-Party Litigation | Pendency of another suit does not bar an injunction action unless it results in an adverse finding. |
| Territorial Jurisdiction | An interactive website accessible from Delhi may confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts. |
| Interim Injunction | Goodwill demonstrated through sales and promotional expenditure is sufficient at the interlocutory stage. |
Case Details
| Title | M/S Modern Pipe Industries Vs Raj Kumar Maurya, Proprietor of M/S Satyam Industries & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 29 May 2026 |
| Case Number | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 & CS (COMM) 1402/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:4859 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Hon’ble Mr Justice Tushar Rao Gedela |
