Trademark Dispute Over "INFINITY" Mark Sees Court Siding with Nippon Paint on Trademark Validity and Passing Off Claims
In a significant ruling on April 10, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, granted an interim injunction in favor of Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited against Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd. The court restrained Glossy Paints from using a mark deceptively similar to Nippon Paint's registered trademark "INFINITY" for their paint products. Simultaneously, the court dismissed the rectification petition filed by Glossy Paints, which sought to invalidate Nippon Paint's trademark registration.
Nippon Paint, a well-established entity in the paint industry, initiated a suit for a permanent injunction, arguing that Glossy Paints' use of the mark "INFINITY" with additional suffixes and symbols was deceptively similar to their own, leading to potential consumer confusion. Nippon Paint had registered the "INFINITY" trademark in Class 2, covering paints and allied goods, since 2001.
Glossy Paints countered with a rectification petition, alleging that Nippon Paint's trademark was registered based on false user claims and was descriptive in nature. They sought the removal of the "INFINITY" mark from the Register of Trade Marks, but the court found no prima facie case to support these claims.
The court meticulously examined submissions from both parties. It noted that Nippon Paint's use of the "INFINITY" mark since 2001 had established significant goodwill and reputation. Conversely, Glossy Paints adopted the impugned mark in 2022, and their application for registration of a similar mark had been opposed by Nippon Paint.
Justice Karia emphasized that the registration process for Nippon Paint's mark had been duly followed, and the presumption of the trademark's validity stood unrebutted by Glossy Paints. The court also rejected Glossy Paints' argument that the mark was merely descriptive, highlighting that they themselves had sought registration for a similar mark, thereby estopping them from challenging its distinctiveness.
The court's decision underscored the likelihood of public confusion arising from the similarity of the marks used for identical goods, leading to a prima facie case of passing off against Glossy Paints. As a result, the court ruled in favor of Nippon Paint, granting them an interim injunction and maintaining the integrity of their trademark registration.
This decision reinforces the legal protection afforded to registered trademarks and the rigorous scrutiny required to challenge such registrations on grounds of invalidity.
Bottom Line:
Trademark law - Interim injunction granted restraining the defendants from using a mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark. Defendants' rectification petition dismissed as no prima facie case of invalidity of the plaintiff's trademark was established.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 28, 29, 31, 47, 57; Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 151
