G4S Secures Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction Against GS4 in Trademark Dispute

G4S Secures Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction Against GS4 in Trademark Dispute

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of G4S, a global leader in security services, in a trademark infringement case against a company using a deceptively similar mark "GS4" for security services.

Factual Background

G4S, a well-established entity with a globally recognized reputation, has been providing integrated security services for decades. The company has registered trademarks "G4S" and variants thereof in numerous classes. The defendants, on the other hand, were using a deceptively similar mark "GS4" and tradename "G S 4 Security Management Private Limited" for similar security services.

Procedural Background

The plaintiffs sought exemption from pre-litigation mediation, which was granted by the court considering the high threshold of responsibility towards public security. The court also allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents at a later stage.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Contentions: The plaintiffs contended that the defendants' use of the mark "GS4" and tradename "G S 4 Security Management Private Limited" constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, and is likely to cause significant public harm due to the similarity with their well-known trademarks "G4S".

Defendant’s Contentions: The defendants, on the other hand, refused to stop using the impugned mark and tradename despite receiving a legal notice, suggesting a potential dispute over the plaintiffs' claims.

Reasoning & Analysis

The court observed that the defendants' mark "GS4" was a direct derivative of the plaintiff's trademarks, and the similarities between the two marks were likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court noted that the security services industry requires heightened caution and vigilance due to the potential consequences of public deception.

Findings

The bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case against the defendants, and the balance of convenience and probabilities tilted in favor of the plaintiffs. The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark and tradename.

Implications

The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting trademarks in the security services industry, where public deception can have serious consequences. The decision also indicates the need for courts to exercise heightened caution and vigilance in such cases.

Final Outcome

The court granted the ex parte ad interim injunction and issued notice to the defendants, returnable on November 19, 2025. The defendants were restrained from offering, exhibiting, advertising, or dealing in security services under the impugned mark and tradename.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Essenese Obhan, Ms. Yogita Rathore and Ms. Urvika Aggarwal, Advocates.