{"id":150497,"date":"2026-09-29T08:00:13","date_gmt":"2026-09-29T02:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=150497"},"modified":"2026-09-27T00:03:51","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T18:33:51","slug":"frozen-assets-delhi-high-courts-bank-lien-twist-in-the-skf-trademark-infringement-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/frozen-assets-delhi-high-courts-bank-lien-twist-in-the-skf-trademark-infringement-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Frozen Assets: Delhi High Court&#8217;s Bank Lien Twist in the SKF Trademark Infringement Case"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><strong>Background<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>When counterfeit auto parts slip into India&#8217;s supply chains, the danger extends well past lost sales into road safety itself, a concern that shaped the outcome of a recent SKF trademark infringement case before the Delhi High Court. AB SKF (\u201cSKF\u201d), the Swedish bearings manufacturer that has operated in India since 1923, sued M\/S B.M. Bearing Sales and an associated entity (together, the \u201cDefendants\u201d), along with unnamed John Doe parties, alleging they were selling counterfeit ball bearings under SKF&#8217;s registered marks in packaging that mirrored SKF&#8217;s own trade dress. SKF, whose products carry the SKF mark used globally since 1907, holds registered trademarks for the mark in India and has built a distribution network of authorised distributors, an anti-counterfeiting verification app called SKF Authenticate, and a dedicated email channel for authenticity checks. Investigations by SKF at the Defendants&#8217; shared business premises revealed listings for SKF-branded bearings on online trade directories and invoices showing specific sums credited to two identified bank accounts, evidence SKF placed before the court to support both the infringement claim and a request to secure the proceeds of the alleged wrongdoing. SKF filed the suit, numbered CS(COMM) 918\/2026, along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for an ex parte ad interim injunction, and the matter came up before the Delhi High Court for its first hearing.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Issues<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the Defendants&#8217; sale of ball bearings under the SKF mark, in packaging identical to SKF&#8217;s registered trade dress, amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (\u201cTrade Marks Act\u201d).<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Defendants&#8217; conduct also amounted to passing off at common law, independent of SKF&#8217;s registered rights.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Defendants&#8217; packaging infringed SKF&#8217;s copyright in the artistic work comprised in its trade dress.<\/li>\n<li>Whether SKF had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm sufficient to justify an ex parte ad interim injunction.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the court could, at the ad interim stage, direct a bank to mark a lien on the Defendants&#8217; accounts to preserve the proceeds of the alleged infringement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><strong>SKF&#8217;s Arguments<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>Submitted that SKF is the registered proprietor of the SKF marks and entitled to exclusive use and protection under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/li>\n<li>Argued that the Defendants were selling counterfeit ball bearings identical to SKF&#8217;s genuine products under the SKF mark, and that shared consumer base and trade channels made confusion \u201cnot only likely but inevitable.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Contended that the Defendants had copied SKF&#8217;s distinctive red, white, and blue trade dress and the stylised SKF logo as a \u201cmirror image,\u201d infringing SKF&#8217;s copyright in the artistic work.<\/li>\n<li>Pointed to investigation findings, including invoices and bank account details, showing specific sums received by each Defendant from sales of the infringing goods.<\/li>\n<li>Argued that because ball bearings are safety-critical components used in vehicles and machinery, sale of substandard counterfeits posed a public safety risk beyond ordinary commercial harm, strengthening the case for urgent relief.<\/li>\n<li>Sought exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, given the urgency of the relief sought, relying on the Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in <em>Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi<\/em> (2024) 5 SCC 815.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><strong>Defendants&#8217; Position<\/strong><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>The Defendants were not represented and had not appeared at this ex parte stage; no arguments were advanced on their behalf.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><strong>Court&#8217;s Analysis<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Establishing a Prima Facie Case on Identical Marks and Trade Dress<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The court noted that SKF had demonstrated long, continuous, and extensive use of the SKF mark since 1907 globally and since 1923 in India, supported by sales figures, promotional spend, and a wide distributor network, all pointing to substantial goodwill central to this SKF trademark infringement case. The court observed that the Defendants were prima facie selling counterfeit ball bearings bearing marks identical to SKF&#8217;s registered trademarks, and that the common trade channels and consumer base made confusion among the public not just possible but likely, satisfying the threshold for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The court further observed that a side-by-side comparison of the rival packaging showed the Defendants had copied SKF&#8217;s trade dress as a mirror image, extending the finding of infringement to the copyright subsisting in the artistic work within that packaging.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Reading Dishonest Adoption Into the Facts<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The court reasoned that the identical adoption of both the mark and the trade dress, for identical goods, reflected a mala fide intent to ride on SKF&#8217;s reputation rather than a coincidence of design choices. In the court&#8217;s view, this dishonest adoption fed directly into the passing off analysis, since members of the public buying the counterfeit bearings were likely to believe, mistakenly, that the goods originated from or were associated with SKF. The court held that this satisfied the elements of passing off at common law, independent of the statutory infringement claim, and that the resulting damage to SKF&#8217;s reputation, compounded by the safety risk from substandard bearings, weighed heavily in favour of urgent relief.<\/p>\n<h3><strong>Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Harm, and the Bank Lien<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p>The court found that the balance of convenience favoured SKF, since restraining unauthorised use of its own registered marks caused the Defendants no legitimate hardship, while continued sales would keep exposing consumers and SKF&#8217;s reputation to harm that could not adequately be compensated later. On the question of securing the proceeds of the alleged infringement, the court opined that the invoices placed on record, showing specific sums credited to two identified bank accounts, gave rise to a genuine apprehension that the Defendants might withdraw or transfer those funds if left unrestrained. The court accordingly directed the bank to mark a lien on the two accounts to the extent of the sums traced to each Defendant, a step that went beyond a conventional trademark injunction to give this SKF trademark infringement case practical teeth against dissipation of assets pending trial.<\/p>\n<h2><strong>Findings<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none;\">\n<ul>\n<li>SKF had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act and of passing off at common law against the Defendants.<\/li>\n<li>The Defendants&#8217; packaging infringed SKF&#8217;s copyright in the artistic work comprised in its registered trade dress.<\/li>\n<li>SKF was granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from using the SKF marks or any deceptively similar trade dress or packaging in relation to ball bearings.<\/li>\n<li>The concerned bank was directed to mark a lien on the Defendants&#8217; identified bank accounts to the extent of the sums traced to proceeds of the alleged infringing sales, pending further orders.<\/li>\n<li>SKF was granted exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, given the urgency of the relief sought.<\/li>\n<li>The suit was registered and summons ordered to be issued to the Defendants, with the matter to proceed through the usual pleadings timeline before the Joint Registrar.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Case Citation:<\/strong> <em>AB SKF v. M\/S B.M. Bearing Sales &amp; Ors.<\/em>, CS(COMM) 918\/2026, Delhi High Court, decided on 21 August 2026. Available at <a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/184755304\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/184755304\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AB SKF has secured an ex parte injunction from the Delhi High Court against sellers of counterfeit ball bearings, in a SKF trademark infringement case that adds a rare twist: a lien on the defendants&#8217; bank accounts to preserve infringing proceeds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":150501,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":2,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,11],"tags":[13198,13200,4774,1679,486,4713,1160,7171,13199,1731],"class_list":["post-150497","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-ball-bearings","tag-bank-lien","tag-commercial-courts-act","tag-counterfeit-goods","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-ex-parte-injunction","tag-passing-off","tag-section-29","tag-skf","tag-trade-marks-act-1999"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150497","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150497"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150497\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":150499,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150497\/revisions\/150499"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/150501"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}