The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark \u201cX1\u201d or \u201cX1 Racing League\u201d. The court held that the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademarks were infringed and passed off by the defendant. It found that the plaintiff\u2019s rights under the Trade Marks Act were valid and enforceable, even in the absence of continuous commercial use.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff, Ashish Aggarwal, obtained registrations for the trademarks \u201cX1\u201d and \u201cX1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED\u201d under Classes 35 and 41 on 11 July 2016. These were used in connection with sporting and entertainment services, including a planned international JetSki racing event. Though the major event could not be held due to market disruptions, the plaintiff continued to promote the brand and claimed goodwill.<\/p>\n
In 2019, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd., was using the mark \u201cX1\u201d and \u201cX1 Racing League\u201d for a motorsport league. The plaintiff initiated legal proceedings alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement of the artistic elements in the mark.<\/p>\n
The Plaintiff argued that:<\/p>\n
The Defendant argued that:<\/p>\n
The court held that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the trademarks and had enforceable statutory rights under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act. It stated that a registered proprietor need not prove continuous commercial use to assert infringement. As per the court, the mere registration, unless removed or invalidated, confers exclusive rights.<\/p>\n
The court referred to a decision of the Delhi High Court (Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Speciality Meditech Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>) which clarified that the defence of non-use under Section 47 is not a ground to defeat infringement unless cancellation proceedings are initiated.<\/p>\n The court also addressed the issue of \u201cwell-known mark\u201d status. Though the plaintiff had claimed the mark to be well-known, the court noted that no formal recognition was granted by any authority. However, the evidence submitted showed substantial use, promotion, and media presence, which supported the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill and proprietary rights.<\/p>\n The court observed that the defendant was aware of the plaintiff\u2019s registration and still went ahead with event promotions, advertisements, and social media posts under the \u201cX1\u201d mark. The evidence presented demonstrated visual and phonetic similarity likely to cause confusion.<\/p>\n The court rejected the argument that the mark \u201cX1\u201d was public or generic in the motorsport industry. According to the court, the fact that other companies may use \u201cX1\u201d did not dilute the plaintiff\u2019s exclusive statutory rights unless the mark was shown to be generic or descriptive\u2014which it was not.<\/p>\n While the plaintiff sought an account of profits, the court noted that the defendant had already filed a provisional statement of accounts showing a loss of over Rs. 62 lakhs. Since the plaintiff did not prove actual damages or challenge the account\u2019s accuracy, no further directions were issued..<\/p>\n The court held that plaintiff\u2019s registered trademarks were infringed and therefore passed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using \u201cX1\u201d or \u201cX1 Racing League\u201d, or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademarks.<\/p>\n No separate relief was granted on rendition of accounts as the defendant had already submitted a loss statement.<\/p>\nConclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n