Court restrains defendants from using deceptively similar mark "SHRM PRO," directs domain registrar and app stores to block defendants' online platforms, and exempts plaintiff from pre-institution mediation citing urgency.
In a significant ruling on September 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Vikas Mahajan, granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) against Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff, SHRM, a globally recognized organization with over 75 years of history and extensive registrations of the trademark "SHRM" and its variants in India and worldwide, approached the Court against the defendants' use of the mark "SHRM PRO" and its variants in relation to allied services, including through a website, social media, and mobile applications.
SHRM, originally founded in 1948 as the American Society for Personnel Administration and renamed in 1989, provides a comprehensive range of human resources-related services and organizes annual flagship conferences in India since 2011. The organization has registered multiple trademarks in India across various classes, including Class 16, 35, and 41, and holds 158 global trademark registrations. SHRM also owns the domain name "www.shrm.org," registered since 1995, which serves as its primary digital identity.
The defendants, incorporated in 2021, had applied for registration of the trademark "SHRM PRO" shortly after their incorporation. However, their initial application was abandoned due to failure to file a counter statement in opposition proceedings initiated by SHRM. Undeterred, the defendants filed a fresh trademark application with a purported prior use claim and continued to operate a website "www.shrmpro.com," which incorporated SHRM's registered mark with an additional non-distinctive term "pro." The defendants also promoted the mark across multiple social media platforms and mobile applications available on Apple App Store and Google Play Store.
The Court noted that the defendants' adoption and use of "SHRM PRO" was not bona fide and was likely to cause confusion, deception, and false association among the public and consumers, who might believe the defendants' services were connected to or endorsed by SHRM. The defendants' website's color scheme and visual presentation were found to be deceptively similar to SHRM's, further exacerbating the likelihood of confusion.
Given the plaintiff's substantial turnover, extensive use, and global recognition of the "SHRM" trademark, the Court was satisfied that SHRM had made out a prima facie case for infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience favored SHRM, and irreparable harm would ensue if the injunction was refused. Consequently, the Court restrained the defendants and their associates from using the impugned marks and directed the domain registrar (GoDaddy.com LLC), Apple Inc., and Google LLC to block, remove, suspend, or disable access to the defendants' website and mobile applications pending the final hearing.
Further, acknowledging the urgency of the matter, the Court exempted SHRM from the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and from making advance service on the defendants before filing the suit.
The Court also permitted SHRM to file additional documents subject to compliance with procedural rules. The defendants have been given four weeks to file their reply, and the matter is listed for further hearing on January 19, 2027.
This judgment reinforces the protection of well-known trademarks against unauthorized use and emphasizes the Court's readiness to grant urgent interim relief to prevent consumer deception in the digital age.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Infringement and passing off - Plaintiff, proprietor of registered trademark "SHRM" and its variants in India and globally, made out a prima facie case against defendants using "SHRM PRO/SHRMpro" for allied services through website, social media and mobile applications - Addition of the laudatory/non-distinctive word "PRO" did not distinguish the impugned mark - Ex parte ad interim injunction granted and domain registrar/App Store/Play Store directed to block, remove, suspend and disable access to defendants' website and mobile applications - Exemption from pre-institution mediation also granted on ground of genuine urgency.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 135(2), Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC, Section 151 CPC
