Sub Headline: Eastman Auto And Power Limited Secures Interim Relief Against Hind Enterprises Over Deceptively Similar Trademark Use
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court on July 3, 2026, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Eastman Auto And Power Limited, a prominent battery manufacturer, against M/s. Hind Enterprises and another defendant. The order was delivered by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, highlighting the prima facie case of trademark infringement and the balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff.
Eastman Auto, known for its expansive reach across 30 countries and significant domestic manufacturing presence, approached the court to restrain Hind Enterprises from using a trademark, "EASTHRON," which bears a deceptive similarity to its established trademark "EASTMAN." The plaintiff argued that the defendants were infringing upon its trademark rights and passing off their products as those of Eastman, thereby causing potential harm to its brand reputation and market share.
The court exempted Eastman Auto from the requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, recognizing the urgency of the matter. This exemption was granted considering precedent judgments, including those in the cases of "Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi" and "Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R A Perfumery Works (P) Ltd.," which emphasized the need for expedited judicial intervention in similar scenarios.
Upon reviewing the case, the court found that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court noted the substantial similarity between the trademarks "EASTHRON" and "EASTMAN," and the identical trade dress utilized by the defendants. It was determined that if the interim relief was not provided, Eastman Auto would suffer irreparable harm.
Consequently, the court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark and trade dress until the next hearing. The order mandates that the defendants submit their written statements within 30 days, with subsequent pleadings to follow, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the allegations.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining fair competition within the market. The case is scheduled for further proceedings on September 24, 2026, before the learned Joint Registrar, where the completion of pleadings and further legal arguments will be addressed.
Bottom line:-
Plaintiff granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from using a deceptively similar trademark, wordmark, and trade dress as that of the plaintiff, given the prima facie case and balance of convenience in plaintiff's favor.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A, Trademarks Act, 1999 Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Section 151 CPC
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v. M/s. Hind Enterprises, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2937634
