“HP+” Too Close to “HP”: Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Screw Trademark Dispute

“HP+” Too Close to “HP”: Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Screw Trademark Dispute

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining the use of the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” on self-drilling screws, finding them deceptively similar to the registered trademark “HP” owned by Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the use of the impugned marks amounted to prima facie trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Factual Background

Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture and sale of self-drilling screws and blind rivets. It traced the origin of its “HP” trademark to 1995 through its predecessor entities and relied on trademark registrations obtained in 2007 and 2014 in Class 6 for the word mark “HP”. These registrations were later assigned to Landmark Crafts, which claimed continuous nationwide use and substantial goodwill.

In June 2022, Landmark Crafts discovered that Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based manufacturer, was selling identical goods under the marks “HP+” and “HP®+”. Landmark alleged that Ganraj was also using deceptively similar packaging, colour schemes, a shikara boat motif, and was unlawfully using the ® symbol despite not holding a registered trademark.

Procedural Background

Landmark Crafts issued a cease-and-desist notice, which did not result in cessation of use. It thereafter instituted a commercial suit before the Commercial Court at Shahdara, seeking a permanent injunction along with interim relief.

The Commercial Court granted an interim injunction restraining Ganraj Enterprises from using the impugned marks. Aggrieved, Ganraj Enterprises preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the interim order.

Issues

1. Whether the interim injunction restraining use of “HP+” and “HP®+” was justified.

2. Whether Landmark Crafts’ registration of the “HP” mark was prima facie valid and territorially unrestricted.

3. Whether the use of the impugned marks and packaging by Ganraj Enterprises amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Contentions of the Parties

Ganraj Enterprises argued that Landmark Crafts’ trademark registrations were territorially restricted and questioned their validity. It claimed bona fide use of the mark “HP+” since 2014 and alleged fabrication of documents relating to Landmark’s prior use.

Landmark Crafts countered that it was the registered proprietor of the “HP” mark with nationwide protection, that the rival marks were practically identical, and that Ganraj’s use of the ® symbol without registration reflected lack of bona fides and heightened the risk of consumer confusion.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court held that, at the interim stage, a registered trademark enjoys a statutory presumption of validity. It found that Landmark Crafts’ later registration of the “HP” mark did not carry any territorial limitation and was prima facie valid.

Comparing the marks, the Court observed that “HP”, “HP+” and “HP®+” were virtually identical and were used for identical goods, squarely attracting infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The Court also took serious note of Ganraj’s unauthorised use of the ® symbol, holding that such conduct aggravated consumer confusion and demonstrated absence of bona fides.

The Court further noted the replication of packaging elements such as the shikara logo, colour schemes and acronyms, concluding that this was a case of rank infringement warranting immediate injunctive relief.

Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the interim order of the Commercial Court. Ganraj Enterprises was restrained from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” during the pendency of the suit. The Court reaffirmed that once prima facie infringement of a validly registered trademark is established, the proprietor is entitled to interlocutory protection.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Mr. Ujjwal Bhardwaj, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. J Sai Deepak, Sr Adv, Ms. Stuti Wason, Mr. Vipin Wason, Mr. Avinash Sharma and Mr. Raunaq Dalal, Advocates.