New Delhi, August 16, 2025 – The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Hero MotoCorp Limited, restraining Urban Electric Mobility Private Limited and associated entities from using the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, and ‘DESTINY PRO’ for their electric scooters. The Court observed that the adoption of these marks was deceptively similar to Hero MotoCorp’s registered trademarks and appeared intended to ride on its reputation and goodwill.
The order, passed by Justice Tejas Karia on August 13 in Hero MotoCorp Limited v. Urban Electric Mobility Pvt Ltd. & Ors., highlights the growing legal battles over branding in India’s rapidly expanding electric vehicle (EV) sector.
Background of the Dispute
Hero MotoCorp, one of India’s largest two-wheeler manufacturers, approached the High Court alleging that several entities engaged in the manufacture and sale of electric scooters had adopted marks strikingly similar to its registered trademarks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’. These trademarks are registered under Classes 12 and 37, which cover vehicles, electric scooters, and related services.
Hero argued that:
- Defendants 1–4, operating as Urban eBikes, were manufacturing and marketing scooters under the names ‘DESTINY’ and ‘DESTINY+’.
- Defendants 5–6, trading as Galaxy EV, were selling and promoting scooters under ‘DESTINY’ and ‘DESTINY PRO’ in collaboration with Defendants 1–4.
- The marks used by the defendants were structurally, phonetically, and visually similar to Hero’s registered marks.
- Defendants 1–3 were also using the mark ‘HERO’ in their branding, misleading consumers into believing an association or collaboration with Hero MotoCorp.
Hero contended that the defendants’ actions amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, and sought urgent interim relief to prevent irreparable harm to its brand reputation and consumer goodwill.
Hero MotoCorp’s Contentions
Through its counsel, Hero submitted that it is the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the relevant trademarks, which enjoy significant recognition in the automobile market. The company argued that the defendants’ use of deceptively similar marks was calculated to mislead consumers, cause confusion, and unfairly exploit Hero’s reputation.
Counsel for Hero stressed that the defendants’ actions were not isolated instances of similarity but reflected a deliberate attempt to misappropriate Hero’s goodwill. The use of the word ‘HERO’ by certain defendants was highlighted as further evidence of bad faith, since it directly pointed towards misrepresentation and consumer deception.
It was further argued that the continued use of the impugned marks would result in irreparable harm to Hero MotoCorp’s goodwill and could erode its market share in the highly competitive EV segment.
Court’s Observations
After considering the pleadings and evidence, Justice Tejas Karia observed that Hero MotoCorp had established a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The Court held that the defendants’ adoption of the impugned marks bore striking similarities to Hero’s registered marks and that their use was likely to cause consumer confusion.
The Court noted:
“Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the Defendants are allowed to continue to use the impugned marks.”
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants – including their owners, directors, employees, and associates – from selling, offering to sell, manufacturing, advertising, or promoting any products bearing the marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINY+’, ‘DESTINY PRO’, or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Hero’s marks ‘DESTINY’, ‘DESTINI’, and ‘DESTINI PRIME’.
The injunction applies not only to offline sales but also to online platforms, including websites and social media.
Legal Context: Trademarks and Consumer Protection
The case raises important issues under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which grants registered proprietors the exclusive right to use their marks and to seek legal remedies against infringement. Sections 28 and 29 of the Act recognize the rights of trademark holders to restrain unauthorized use of identical or deceptively similar marks that may cause consumer confusion.
Indian courts have consistently emphasized the importance of protecting well-known and widely used trademarks. In Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), the Supreme Court laid down detailed tests for assessing deceptive similarity, including structural, phonetic, and visual resemblances. Similarly, in ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries (2016), the Delhi High Court reiterated that consumer confusion, even if momentary, can constitute actionable infringement.
In the present case, Hero MotoCorp demonstrated that the defendants’ marks not only resembled its registered trademarks but also extended to the unauthorized use of the word ‘HERO’, thereby aggravating the potential for deception.
Implications of the Order
The interim injunction has several implications for the automobile and EV markets:
- Strengthening IP Enforcement in EV Sector: As the EV market grows, companies are likely to face increasing instances of trademark disputes. This order signals the judiciary’s willingness to provide swift relief to established players against infringement.
- Consumer Protection: By preventing the use of deceptively similar marks, the Court safeguards consumers from being misled into purchasing products under the false impression of association with a reputed brand.
- Goodwill and Market Share: For Hero MotoCorp, the injunction secures its reputation in the EV segment, ensuring that its investment in brand-building remains protected.
- Deterrence for Smaller Players: The ruling serves as a warning to smaller and emerging EV manufacturers against adopting marks that could be construed as free-riding on established brands.
Possible Outcomes and Next Steps
The interim order provides immediate protection to Hero MotoCorp, but the case will proceed to a full trial where the Court will examine evidence on record and arguments from both parties before issuing a final judgment.
If the injunction is confirmed at the final stage, Hero could secure long-term protection against the use of ‘DESTINY’ and similar marks by competitors. Conversely, if the defendants succeed in challenging the validity of Hero’s marks or proving lack of consumer confusion, the injunction could be vacated.
Given the current findings, however, the balance of convenience appears strongly tilted in favour of Hero MotoCorp.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in Hero MotoCorp Limited v. Urban Electric Mobility Pvt Ltd. & Ors. reflects the judiciary’s proactive stance in addressing trademark disputes, particularly in emerging markets like electric vehicles. By granting Hero MotoCorp urgent interim protection, the Court reinforced the principle that goodwill and reputation built over years of business cannot be allowed to be diluted through deceptively similar branding.
As India’s EV industry expands, trademark enforcement will play an increasingly crucial role in shaping fair competition and consumer trust. This ruling serves as a reminder that intellectual property rights remain central to corporate strategy and are actively safeguarded by the courts.
