Recently, the Delhi High Court passed an ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement on trademark infringement by the Hero MotoCorp Ltd. against others Urban Electric Mobility. The order of the court prevents the defendants to utilize the brand names as DESTINY, DESTINY+, DESTINY PRO on their target product, which is the electric two-wheelers. This paper will explore the facts of the case, the merits of the case, and the consequences of the judgement by the court.
Case History
The plaintiff in this case (CS(COMM) 832/2025) is Hero MotoCorp that produces motorcycles and scooters. The company has preexisted and registered trademarks of DESTINY, DESTINI and DESTINI PRIME under Class 12 and 37. Hero MotoCorp is a commercial user of the mark DESTINI since 2018, and it has not licensed the use of the same.
The accused in this case Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited and others are reported to be producing and selling electric scooters and branding the same as DESTINY and DESTINY+. Other two other defendants, who do business under the name of, ‘Galaxy EV, are marketing and selling scooters with the marks of, ‘DESTINY, and ‘DESTINY PRO’. On the behalf of the plaintiff, the counsel Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal submitted that the defendants have adopted what he referred to as the Impugned Marks are the watered-down versions of Hero MotoCorp Subject Marks in structural, phonetic and visual terms.
For any queries or to publish an article or post or advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
What Plaintiff will Submit or Argue Based on the Law
The legal team of Hero MotoCorp made a strong case before the court, as there are a few points that they have made:
- Trademark Infringement: The plaintiff argued that the incorporation of DESTINY, DESTINY+ and DESTINY PRO by the defendants is a trademark infringement under section 29 Trade Marks Act, 1999. The confusability of the marks will probably give the general population reason to believe that the products of the defendants have a brand connection with Hero MotoCorp.
- Fraudulent Similarity: The counsel pointed out the phonetic close resemblance between the names of the product DESTINY and DESTINI, which would confuse consumers upon hearing or uttering the names of the products in consonants. This is a misrepresentation that may cause confusion to the consumers and cause lack of market share plus goodwill that would not be regained by Hero MotoCorp.
- Unfair Competition: Hero MotoCorp claimed that that was an intentional effort by the defendants to trade off on their reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. The intention of the defendants by adopting a deceptively similar mark is to invite an impression that there is an association or a collaboration between them and Hero MotoCorp and so directing the weight of their actions to the plaintiff. The plaintiff as well observed that the defendants were also using the mark HERO to perpetuate this misrepresentation.
- Misappropriation of Goodwill: The plaintiff also claimed that the use of the impugned marks by the defendants was malafides and there was an intention of misappropriating the goodwill attached to the marks of Hero MotoCorp and utilize it to the commercial advantage of the defendants. This utilization is deemed as harmful to the unique nature and repute of the marks of the plaintiff.
- Irreparable Harm: The legal representative of the plaintiff emphasized that the damage inficked by enfeeblement of the marks DESTINY, the loss of consumer confidence and brand exclusivity is a type of injury, which cannot be fulfilled properly paid. The harm that would be incurred by the defendants carrying on with their infringing nature of business would be irreparable.
The decision of the Court
The Honble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, Judge of the Delhi High Court after examining the submissions of the counsel representing the Hero MotoCorp, the pleadings in the case, the documents filed on record held that the plaintiff has made a prima facie case of the grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
The court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, but against the defendants. The above aspect in the law implies that the harm that plaintiff can suffer in the event that the injunction is not granted is greater than what the defendants can suffer upon the event that it is granted.
For any queries or to publish an article or post or advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
The court therefore made an order restraining the defendants and their owners, partners, directors and persons acting on behalf of the restrained undertakings against:
- Distribute, transfer, assign, offer to sell, and selling or advertising, manufacturers or offers to manufacture, merchandise, or promote the impugned marks namely DESTINY, DESTINY+ and DESTINY PRO.
- Encroaching on or utilizing any other trade characteristic that is confusingly so as to Hero MotoCorp marks DESTINY, DESTINI and DESTINI PRIME.
- Utilising these activities in connection with either identical or similar goods or services, namely those which are represented by Classes 12 and 37.
This injunction has banned the defendants to further engage in the imposed infringement activities which have been proven to be leading to trademark infringement, passing off and unfair competition.
Other Orders of the Court
Other orders that the High Court made in addition to the injunction in order to progress with the case include:
For any queries or to publish an article or post or advertisement on our platform, do call at +91 6377460764 or email us at contact@legalmaestros.com.
- Waiver of Mandatory Pre-litigation Mediation: The case was exempted by Hero MotoCorp to the pre-litigation mandatory mediation as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Acts, 2015, since the case involved; urgent interim relief.
- Additional Documents: The plaintiff could file additional documents in line with the stipulated rules and acts.
- Summons and Pleadings: The court directed the defendants be summoned and their written statements to be filed within a 30 days period of receiving the summons. The defendants are also expected to file Affidavit of Admission/Denial of documents of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was given a freedom to file a replication at the lapse of 30 days by being given the written statement.
- Next Hearing: The hearing of the case has been scheduled before the Joint Registrar on October 13, 2025 on the completion of service and pleadings, and before the court on November 24, 2025.
The Delhi High Court interim injunction on Hero MotoCorp against a trademark infringer is an outstanding move regarding the war on trademark offenses in the emerging electric vehicle market in India. The order underlines the necessity of preservation of the registered trademarks and goodwill of the existing brands. It also sends a definitive signal to other businesses that misappropriating another another businesses uniqueness by means of exploitative similar marks will not be considered.
The instance underscores the strong legal system established to defend the security of intellectual property, as well as the proactivism of the judiciary, in averting consumer and unfair-trade confusions. Such a decision would become subject of close scrutiny in the future but at present, this will afford a fair degree of protection to the Hero MotoCorp brand, DESTINY.
