Summary
Rynox Gears, a Mumbai-based manufacturer of motorcycle protective gear, filed suit against Steelite India, a Delhi-based helmet maker, over Steelite's registered RHYNOX mark, which Rynox claimed was deceptively similar to its own RYNOX trademark. The Bombay High Court dismissed Rynox's application for an interim injunction, holding that no infringement action lies against a registered proprietor and that Rynox had failed to establish the classical trinity for passing off. The court also found that Rynox had made material false statements on oath, disentitling it to equitable relief. The ruling is a pointed reminder that clean hands matter as much as registered rights in IP litigation.
Background
A registered trademark is only as strong as the honesty of the party that wields it. This lesson was made clear by the Bombay High Court in March 2026, when it dismissed an interim injunction application tainted by false pleadings and an absent goodwill claim in the very segment where the dispute arose.
Rynox Gears (“Rynox”), a Mumbai-based partnership firm, has manufactured and marketed motorcycle protective accessories, including jackets, gloves, and luggage, under the trademark RYNOX since 2012. By 2019, Rynox had developed a distinctive label incorporating the RYNOX word mark and had secured approximately 23 trademark registrations across multiple classes. Its certified sales turnover for 2022-2023 stood at approximately Rs. 42 crores.
Steelite India (“Steelite”), a Delhi-based partnership firm established in 2016, entered the helmet market under the trademark RHYNOX. The name was adopted, according to Steelite, as a tribute to the rhinoceros, the State animal of Assam, symbolising strength and resilience. Steelite applied for registration of the RHYNOX mark in Class 9 on 2 January 2017, after conducting a registry search and subsequently obtaining registration on 28 November 2020, without opposition.
Rynox first learned of Steelite’s registered mark in June 2023 and filed a rectification application. It also issued a cease-and-desist notice in October 2023. The suit for trademark infringement and passing off was filed before the Bombay High Court’s Commercial Division in November 2024, accompanied by an application for an interim injunction.
Issues
-
-
- Whether an action for trademark infringement could lie against Steelite, a registered proprietor of the RHYNOX mark, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Whether Rynox established a prima facie case for passing off, satisfying the classical trinity of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
- Whether Rynox’s false pleadings disentitled it to equitable interim relief on the principle of unclean hands.
-
Rynox’s Arguments
-
-
- Rynox has used and promoted the RYNOX mark since 2012, well before Steelite entered the market, building substantial goodwill evidenced by its Rs. 42-crore turnover.
- RHYNOX is phonetically identical to RYNOX, and both brands operate in the motorcycle products space, making consumer confusion likely.
- An actual instance of confusion had occurred on Meesho, an e-commerce platform, where Steelite’s helmets were listed under the RYNOX mark.
- Rynox’s products, including jackets, gloves, and luggage, are cognate and allied goods to helmets, forming part of the same commercial category of motorcycle safety equipment.
-
Steelite’s Arguments
-
-
- Steelite adopted RHYNOX bona fide in 2016 and applied for registration before Rynox’s mark was published in the Trademark Journal. The registration was granted and remains valid.
- Under Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a registered proprietor cannot be held liable for infringement by another registered proprietor of a nearly identical mark.
- Rynox does not manufacture or sell helmets, the only product Steelite trades in. Without a common field of activity, there is no market overlap and no basis for passing off.
- Rynox’s pleadings were materially false: it claimed to be a helmet manufacturer and alleged that the cease-and-desist notice was duly served and that Steelite had taken down its website in response, all of which were demonstrably untrue.
-
Court’s Analysis
When Two Registrations Collide
The court’s starting point was the statutory framework governing concurrent registered trademarks. Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines infringement, operates only against a person who is not the registered proprietor of the mark in use. Read alongside Section 28(3), which provides that no exclusive right can be claimed by one registered proprietor against another where the marks are identical or nearly similar, and Section 30(2)(e), which excludes infringement liability where a registered mark is used in exercise of the right conferred by registration, the position was clear: Steelite could not be sued for infringement.
The court acknowledged the exception carved out by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson: a civil court may look behind a registration where it is ex facie illegal, fraudulent, or such as shocks the conscience of the court. Rynox neither pleaded nor argued that Steelite’s registration was ex facie illegal. Given that Rynox’s mark was published only after Steelite had already filed its application, there was no prima facie case of fraud. The infringement claim accordingly failed.
False Pleadings, Unclean Hands
Before even reaching the merits of the passing off claim, the court identified two material misrepresentations in Rynox’s pleadings. First, Rynox claimed in its plaint to manufacture and market helmets. This was demonstrably false, and by the time of the rejoinder, Rynox had abandoned the position, retreating to the argument that its products were merely “allied” to helmets. Second, Rynox claimed that the cease-and-desist notice had been received by Steelite and had caused Steelite to take down its website. Rynox’s own rectification application before the Trademark Registry admitted that the notice was returned unserved. When this contradiction was exposed in Steelite’s reply, Rynox claimed in its rejoinder that proof of delivery had been “inadvertently misplaced.”
Relying on Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that a party approaching a court with unclean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits, the Bombay High Court found the false statements on oath sufficient to dismiss the application outright.
The Classical Trinity: No Goodwill, No Case
The court assessed the passing off claim on the merits as well. Goodwill, it held, must be assessed as of the date Steelite commenced use of its mark in 2016. While Rynox’s certified turnover for 2016-2017 stood at approximately Rs. 4.85 crores, that goodwill was in motorcycle jackets, gloves, and luggage. Rynox had no presence in the helmet segment, and goodwill in one product category does not automatically extend to another.
On misrepresentation, a visual comparison of the marks was telling: Steelite’s composite label features a rhinoceros and a stylised “X,” elements entirely absent from Rynox’s mark. Applying Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories, the court held that added matter can sufficiently distinguish a defendant’s goods from a plaintiff’s. The overall impression of the marks was dissimilar, and the solitary Meesho listing did not establish a likelihood of deception. On damage, Rynox’s goodwill existed in a segment Steelite did not operate in. No risk of harm to Rynox’s reputation was demonstrated.
Findings
In view of the observations and arguments presented by both parties, the Bombay High Court held that:
-
-
- No action for trademark infringement could lie against Steelite, as it is a registered proprietor of the RHYNOX mark, protected by Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Steelite’s registration was not ex facie illegal or fraudulent so as to attract the exception established in Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson.
- Rynox’s material false pleadings on oath disentitled it to equitable interim relief, applying the principle affirmed in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India.
- Rynox failed to establish the classical trinity for passing off: it had no goodwill in the helmet segment, the marks were visually dissimilar when assessed as a whole, and no damage to Rynox’s reputation was demonstrated.
- The interim injunction application was dismissed.
-
Case Citation: Rynox Gears v. Steelite India, Interim Application (Lodging) No. 897 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (Lodging) No. 35513 of 2024, Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), decided on 17 March 2026. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173892275/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels