Tata Power Wins Landmark Trademark Case: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction

Tata Power Wins Landmark Trademark Case: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant ruling by granting a summary judgment in favor of Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited and others, holding that the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks.

Factual Background

The plaintiffs, Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited and others, instituted a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of trademark, passing off, and unfair trade competition. The defendants, including Defendant No. 1 (John Doe) and Defendant No. 18, were alleged to have used the plaintiffs' registered trademarks without authorization.

Procedural Background

The plaintiffs filed an application for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act. Earlier, the Court had already granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks.

Contentions of the Parties

• Plaintiffs' Contentions: The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had no real prospect of defending the claims, as they had slavishly copied the plaintiffs' registered and well-reputed trademarks.
• Defendants' Contentions: No appearance was entered, and no written statement was filed by the defendants.

Court's Analysis

The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that, in the absence of a written statement, the averments in the plaint stood admitted. The Court found that the plaintiffs had proved ownership of the registered trademarks including ‘TATA’, ‘TATA POWER’, and other associated marks.

Reasoning & Analysis

The Court relied on Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev, which held that summary judgment can be granted where the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and there is no compelling reason for a full trial.

Implications

This decision underscores the strict protection of registered trademarks and the serious consequences of infringement. It also clarifies the scope and application of summary judgment in trademark disputes.

Outcome

The Court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and against Defendant Nos. 1 and 18, and directed Defendant No. 18 to suspend the infringing domain name used for impersonation. The suit was disposed of in line with the interim orders dated November 14, 2024, and April 8, 2025.

In this case, the plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra with Mr. C.A. Brijesh and Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Advocates.