Summary
This post discusses the Delhi High Court's decision in the Promodome trademark dispute, where Promodome Communication Private Limited secured an ex-parte injunction against Promodome Digital LLP. The Plaintiff demonstrated long-standing use and substantial market presence of its registered PROMODOME trademarks. The Court found a case of triple identity, involving identical marks, services, and consumer base, and restrained the Defendant from using the impugned mark and domain name. The order reflects the Court’s approach to urgent relief in clear cases of trademark infringement and passing off.
Background
Promodome Communication Private Limited (“Plaintiff”), is a company engaged in the business of advertising, communication, branding, audio-visual productions, digital content, and allied communication services under the registered PROMODOME trademarks ‘PROMODOME’, ‘PROMODOME DIGITAL’, and ‘PROMODOME COMMUNICATIONS’. The Plaintiff also operates and maintains its official website, https://promodomegroup.com.
In 2021, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant, Promodome Digital LLP, a digital marketing agency, incorporated in July 2020 was operating a website, https://promodome.in (“Impugned Domain Name”) and social media handles under the brand name ‘PROMODOME DIGITAL’. Upon inquiry, the Plaintiff found instances of confusion among clients and vendors who believed the two entities were connected.
Aggrieved by the Defendant’s conduct, the Plaintiff instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction against infringement, passing off and other reliefs. To prevent the Defendant from disposing of, concealing or suppressing its infringing business operations and digital footprints, the Plaintiff also sought an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioner.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
-
- The Plaintiff’s registered PROMODOME trademarks have been continuously used since 2000 in relation to advertising and communication services. Its annual revenue under the PROMODOME trademarks was approximately ₹57 crores for the Financial Year 2024–25, evidencing substantial market value and recognition.
- The Defendant’s adoption of the identical mark ‘PROMODOME DIGITAL’ for similar services constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it misrepresents to the public that its services originate from or are connected with the Plaintiff.
- The Defendant’s use of the Impugned Domain Name and identical branding on social media amounts to passing off and causes confusion among the same consumer base.
- The Defendant’s conduct demonstrates a deliberate attempt to ride upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, amounting to dishonest commercial gain.
Court’s findings and decision
The Court observed that this was a classic case of triple identity:
-
- Identical marks – “PROMODOME DIGITAL” used by both parties;
- Identical services – advertising, digital marketing, and branding;
- Identical trade channels and consumers – overlapping clientele in the communication and media industry.
The Court held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Accordingly, until the next date of hearing, the Court directed that the Defendant, its partners, agents, and representatives be restrained as follows:
-
- From using, advertising, or promoting the impugned mark, ‘PROMODOME DIGITAL’, or any other marks identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s PROMODOME trademarks; and
- From operating the Impugned Domain Name or any other domain name similar to the Plaintiff’s website https://promodomegroup.com.
Citation: Promodome Communication Private Limited vs Promodome Digital LLP, CS(COMM) 1015/2025 and I.A. 24022/2025, Delhi High Court, Order dated 24 September 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/44764970/.
