Delhi High Court Awards Damages, Bars ‘IGBC’ Certification Over Trademark Infringement

Delhi High Court Awards Damages, Bars ‘IGBC’ Certification Over Trademark Infringement

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained a Mumbai-based entity from using the name “IGBC” and related expressions found to be deceptively similar to the trademarks of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). The Court held that such use amounted to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off, and awarded exemplary damages in favour of USGBC.

Factual Background

USGBC is a globally reputed non-profit organisation engaged in promoting sustainable building practices and providing green building certification services. It is the registered proprietor of multiple trademarks, including “USGBC”, and has built substantial goodwill through long-standing use of its marks, certification programmes, and official website.

The defendant, Deming Certification Services Private Limited, was offering green building certification services under the name “International Green Building Council” and the acronym “IGBC”. It also used a circular logo closely resembling that of USGBC and hosted website content that, in substantial parts, was copied verbatim from USGBC’s website.

Procedural Background

USGBC instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyright, along with passing off. Interim orders were earlier passed restraining Deming Certification Services from using the disputed marks. The defendant had given an undertaking claiming to have ceased use of the infringing names and shut down the offending website.

The matter was finally adjudicated by a single-judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, culminating in a judgment dated December 24, 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the marks “International Green Building Council” and “IGBC” were deceptively similar to USGBC’s registered trademarks.

2. Whether the defendant’s logo and website content infringed USGBC’s copyright.

3. Whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to passing off and dilution of USGBC’s goodwill.

4. Whether USGBC was entitled to permanent injunctive relief and damages.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: USGBC contended that it is the registered proprietor of well-known marks that have acquired global goodwill and recognition. It argued that the defendant’s adoption of “IGBC,” coupled with a similar logo and copied website content, was a deliberate attempt to ride on USGBC’s reputation and mislead consumers seeking genuine green building certification services.

Defendant: The defendant resisted the suit but, during the proceedings, repeatedly failed to comply with court directions. It had earlier given an undertaking to discontinue use of the disputed marks, though the Court found its overall conduct lacking bona fides.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Tejas Karia found that a clear case of infringement had been established. On comparing the competing marks, the Court observed that the dominant features of USGBC’s marks were closely imitated in the defendant’s marks, including their overall stylisation and the prominent placement of a tree motif at the centre. The Court held that the similarity was not confined to names alone but extended to visual appearance and trade dress, making confusion inevitable. It noted that there was a strong likelihood of unwary consumers being misled into believing that the defendant’s services originated from, or were associated with, USGBC.

The Court also found that copying substantial portions of content from USGBC’s website constituted copyright infringement. Taking note of the defendant’s repeated non-compliance with court orders and delaying tactics, the Court described its conduct as casual and undeserving of judicial confidence. Overall, the Court concluded that the defendant’s actions were calculated to cause confusion, dilute USGBC’s goodwill, and pass off its services as those of a globally reputed organisation.

Decision

The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Deming Certification Services Private Limited from using the marks “International Green Building Council,” “IGBC,” or any other mark deceptively similar to USGBC’s trademarks. The Court awarded ₹10 lakh as exemplary damages and granted costs in favour of USGBC, holding that the defendant’s conduct warranted stringent relief.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Rahul Chaudhry, Ms. Ekta Sarin, Mr. Ayush Samaddar and Ms. Ishita Maheshwari, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by the Mr. Piyush Kumar, Advocate.