The case involves a lawsuit filed by Aktiebolaget Volvo and its affiliated
entities (collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs"), which are Swedish
companies engaged in the transportation and automotive sector, against Gyan
Singh and another individual (referred to as "the defendants"). The plaintiffs
sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their
"VOLVO" trademarks, passing off their goods as the plaintiffs', and other
The plaintiffs claimed that they held registrations for the "VOLVO" mark in
India and various foreign countries and had established significant goodwill and
reputation in their mark. The defendants were allegedly involved in the
manufacturing and sale of bicycles bearing the mark "VOLVO." The plaintiffs
contended that such activities by the defendants amounted to trademark
infringement and passing off.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the
defendants. The court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of the
plaintiffs and appointed Local Commissioners to seize infringing goods.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application to implead additional
defendants, which was allowed, and an amended plaint was taken on record. The
defendants no. 1 and 2 filed written statements, while the defendants no. 3 and
4 did not file any reply. The plaintiffs then filed an application seeking
summary judgment, which the defendants no. 1 and 2 did not oppose.
The court addressed the following legal issues in its decision:
Rules of Law:
The court relied on the following legal principles and provisions:
- Whether the defendants' use of the "VOLVO" mark on bicycles amounted to
trademark infringement and passing off?
- Whether summary judgment should be granted in favor of the plaintiffs?
Analysis and Reasoning:
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India
- Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act (definition of well-known
- Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act (definition of trademark use)
- Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (summary judgment in
- Rule 27 of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules (application
of summary judgment to IP disputes)
The court analyzed the evidence provided by the plaintiffs, including their
trademark registrations, the defendants' activities, and the reports of the
Local Commissioners. The court found that the defendants were using the mark
"VOLVO" on bicycles, which was identical to the plaintiffs' registered mark.
It determined that the defendants' actions constituted trademark infringement
and passing off, as they misled customers and caused dilution of the plaintiffs'
reputation and goodwill. The court also noted that the defendants' use of the
mark extended to advertising and offering the products for sale. It concluded
that the defendants had no reasonable prospect of success in the suit and that
summary judgment was appropriate.
Holding and Decision:
The court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs,
restraining the defendants from using the mark "VOLVO" in connection with their
products. The court also awarded damages and costs to the plaintiffs. The
defendants no. 3 and 4, as manufacturers and suppliers of the infringing goods,
were ordered to pay Rs. 6,50,000/-, while the defendants no. 1 and 2, as sellers
of the goods, were ordered to pay Rs. 3,50,000/-.
Implications and Significance:
The court's decision reinforces the protection of well-known trademarks and
emphasizes the consequences of trademark infringement and passing off. It
highlights the importance of trademark owners' rights and the need to deter
unauthorized use of their marks. The case also underscores the availability of
summary judgment in intellectual property disputes, allowing for a quicker
resolution of clear-cut cases.
The High Court of Delhi granted a permanent injunction to Aktiebolaget Volvo and
its affiliates, prohibiting the defendants from using the "VOLVO" mark on
bicycles. The court found the defendants' actions to be trademark infringement
and passing off, as they caused confusion among consumers and dilution of the
plaintiffs' mark. The decision reaffirms the protection of well-known trademarks
and highlights the court's willingness to grant summary judgment in appropriate