Summary
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining defendants from manufacturing, selling, and operating buses bearing infringing marks identical or deceptively similar to Volvo's registered "grille slash" trademark. The case involved systematic trademark infringement in the commercial vehicle sector, with defendants manufacturing and offering services using fake Volvo buses and misleading consumers through false advertising.
Imagine booking a premium Volvo bus ticket, paying extra for the comfort and reliability you expect, only to find yourself on a knock-off vehicle that looks like a Volvo but definitely doesn’t feel like one. That’s exactly what happened to passengers in India, leading to a trademark infringement suit.
On 30th May 2025, the Delhi High Court issued an ex parte interim injunction in Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors., illustrating how trademark law protects more than just names and logos. The Swedish automotive giant Volvo, along with its subsidiary companies, discovered that multiple Indian companies were manufacturing and operating buses that looked quite similar to its vehicles.
The Iconic Grille Slash
The Plaintiffs, Aktiebolaget Volvo and three related Swedish entities (Volvo Trademark Holding AB, Volvo Car Corporation, and Volvo Trucks Corporation), operate collectively in the global transportation and automotive sector, with established operations in India since 1996. In India, Volvo buses have redefined long-distance luxury travel since 2001.
Volvo adopted the “VOLVO” trademark on May 11, 1915, establishing more than a century of common law rights. Volvo has also obtained registration of numerous ‘VOLVO’ trademarks all over the world, including over two dozen registrations in India. “VOLVO” is recognised as a well-known trademark in India (Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steel Ltd., 1998 PTC (18) 47). Their earliest registration for the ‘VOLVO’ trademark in India dates back to 1975. One of the company’s most iconic symbols is the “grille slash”, a distinctive diagonal mark running across the grille of its vehicles.
Who Were the Defendants?
The Defendants, a network of three primary entities:
-
- Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs (Defendant No. 1): The manufacturer who admitted to fabricating over 100 -125 buses that mimicked Volvo’s aesthetics, including the grille mark.
- Rishabh Bus Private Limited (Defendant No. 2): An intercity operator that bought these lookalike buses and marketed them as Volvo vehicles on platforms like MakeMyTrip, Paytm, and AbhiBus.
- Shanti Travels (Defendant No. 3): Another bus operator whose vehicles bore a nearly identical grille motif but with the name “SHANTI” replacing “VOLVO”.
What Triggered the Case?
Volvo had previously fought and won against a related entity, RS Yadav Volvo Bus Services, in 2019. Despite an injunction and undertakings to cease usage, Volvo discovered in March 2024 that buses bearing infringing marks were still plying the roads. The common link: Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs. This led to a full-blown investigation in April-May 2025, revealing a systemic operation targeting Volvo’s brand equity.
The Court noted one customer review that highlighted the real-world impact:
“Paid rs 4000/- through my trip for multi axle delhi to mumbai.. but provided ordinary bus converted into sleeper.. no seat cover… I booked for multi axle volvo and got all ordinary bus.. for which it would have cost rs. 1700/- they are cheating.”
This case was not merely about infringement; it also raised significant consumer protection concerns. Customers were paying premium prices for what they believed were genuine Volvo buses, only to receive substandard service.
Issues Framed by the Court
The Court framed four major legal issues:
-
- Whether the defendants’ use of similar marks amounted to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Whether their conduct constituted passing off, misleading consumers about the origin and quality of services.
- The extent of protection for well-known trademarks, especially in related or ancillary sectors.
- Whether Volvo had shown a prima facie case, a balance of convenience, and irreparable harm to justify a temporary injunction.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
At this interim stage, the Court dealt with the last issue regarding injunction and noted as follows:
-
- Prima Facie Case: The Court recognised VOLVO as a registered and well-known trademark. The grille slash was held to be a distinctive symbol directly associated with Volvo. The Defendants’ marks were found to be identical or deceptively similar and used for similar services.
- Balance of Convenience: The use of counterfeit branding by over 100 buses, along with marketing misrepresentations on leading online platforms, created a real risk of consumer confusion and dilution of Volvo’s brand.
- Irreparable Harm: The judgment noted that such use threatened Volvo’s exclusivity, diminished its goodwill, and caused damage not easily quantifiable. Moreover, systemic infringement indicated a likelihood of such practices spreading if not curtailed immediately.
Relief Granted
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining all Defendants (and their agents, affiliates, etc.) from:
-
- Manufacturing, selling, or operating any bus bearing the VOLVO name or grille slash mark;
- Using any confusingly similar symbols, logos, insignia, or trade dress;
- Advertising travel services that suggest an association with Volvo.
This injunction remains in effect until the next hearing (October 9, 2025), with compliance procedures under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC to be completed within a week.
Why This Case Matters
This case is an example of how brand elements beyond just logos, like the shape of a grille, can be protected and enforced as trademarks. It also demonstrates the advantages of having a well-known mark, which, in Indian trademark law, commands wide protection, even across unrelated domains.
For IP owners, it’s a reminder of the importance of:
-
- Timely surveillance and enforcement;
- Maintaining solid documentation and trademark registrations;
- Acting against all links in the infringing supply chain, not just the manufacturer.
For consumers, it is a reminder to stay informed when booking services online, particularly when premium brands are involved.
What’s Next?
The Defendants now have the opportunity to respond, but given the admissions, photographic evidence, and scale of infringement, Volvo’s case appears strong. Whether this results in a final injunction or settlements, this order sets a precedent for brand owners navigating counterfeit use in service industries.
Until then, those grille slashes better stay where they belong, on genuine Volvo vehicles.
Citation: Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors. CS(COMM) 601/2025, Delhi High Court, before Justice Amit Bansal, decided on May 30, 2025, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60031594/ (Last accessed on 08th July, 2025)
Article Review: Ms. Ashwini Arun
