Mr. Urfee Roomi, Mr. Ritesh, Mr. Ayush, Ms. Chahat and Ms. Vanshika, Advs v. VIVEK PRATAP SINGH

Judgment

1. The appellant is one of the leading manufacturers of motor oils in the country.

2. It is a matter of common knowledge that engine oils manufactured by the appellant have been duplicated by several counterfeiters who sell engine oils in cans and containers which are identical in appearance, using marks which are also deceptively similar to those of the appellant.

3. One of us, sitting singly in this Court, has dealt with similar matters in which identical infringements had come up before the Court. As these cases deal with engine oil, and duplicacy can lead Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 even to loss of lives, the Court has to take an extremely serious view where counterfeiting is seen.

The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge has not passed any order on the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and merely renotified the application and also declined to pass any order appointing a local commissioner to seize the infringing products.

5. The local commissioner appointed by the learned Single Judge was only given power to inventorise the infringing products and no power of seizure.

6. When this matter had come up before us, on the very first date of hearing, given the nature of the dispute, we had passed the following order: “*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 and CM APPL. 25378/2025 CASTROL LIMITED .....Appellant Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Through: Janaki Arun, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Chahat Bhatia and Mr. Ayush Dixit, Advocates versus VIVEK PRATAP SINGH .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL Signature Not Verified % Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 O R D E R 29.04.2025 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 This appeal assails order dated 22 April 2025 passed by a in IA 10007/2025 in CS

1. learned Single Judge of this Court (COMM) 360/20251. The appellant, Castrol Limited2,

2. following registered trademarks: is the proprietor of the Mark S. No . 1 2 3 4 ACTIV Class Date Applicati- 4 4 4 4 25 January 1999 25 January 1999 31 March 2014 17 October 2023 Year 1st 1998 1999 2012 2012

3. The appellant alleged that the respondent was indulging in producing counterfeit products, with a trade dress and appearance nearly identical to the trade dress of the appellant, which stands registered as a trademark in its favour. A tabular comparison in this regard is provided in para 17 of the appeal, which may be reproduced thus : S. No. Respondent's Marks and Packaging Appellant's Marks and Packaging Changes made Respondent Signature Not Verified 1 Castrol Limited v Vivek Pratap Singh 2 “Castrol”, hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025

2. ACTVE ACTIV

3. The Respondent copied in its entirety the bullet-shaped device and the colour scheme and font from the Appellant's CASTROL Device mark. Respondent The merely removed Roundel Device replaced CASTROL with SPEED-UP in the same colour and font as the word CASTROL. OREO The Respondent merely added the letter E and removed the letter I from the Appellant's ACTIV mark to arrive at Respondent's The ACTVE mark. Respondent font, copied the exact scheme colour writing ACTIV Respondent's mark to arrive at Respondent's ACTVE. All in all, the rival marks are visually, structurally phonetically nearly identical. Respondent The copied the Appellant's Oil in Action with Bearing Device in its entirety. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025

5. overall get-up colour The scheme, layout nearly packaging The identical. Respondent made minor alterations, such as the replacement of the CASTROL Device OREO/SPEED-UP Device marks and made insignificant changes to arrive at The packaging. Respondent imitated the placement of Appellant's CASTROL Device mark on the right side of the bottle, engraved in grey colour. All rival packaging is nearly identical, The likelihood of confusion is apparent and unavoidable. in all, overall Clearly, scheme, get-up colour and layout of the rival nearly packaging The identical. Respondent made minor alterations, such as the replacement CASTROL ACTIV Device mark SPEEDUP POWER Device mark insignificant changes to its packaging. arrive at The Respondent has also imitated the placement of Appellant's CASTROL Device mark on the right side of the bottle, engraved in grey colour. All rival packaging is nearly identical. The likelihood of confusion is apparent and unavoidable. in all,

4. Mr. Urfee Roomi, learned counsel for the appellant, has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 also produced before us, physical copies of the containers of the appellant and the respondent. We have taken photographs thereof and the comparison thereof may be provided thus: Appellant’s Packaging Respondent’s packaging

5. This Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the appellant’s brand is one of the most widely counterfeited brands. On the original side of this Court, we have come across any number of cases in which the appellant’s brand and the container of the appellant have been counterfeited and counterfeiters have been selling motor oil and other such products in containers nearly identical in appearance to that of the appellant, and mimicking the colour scheme of the appellant’s container as well as the oil in action bearing device ( ). the goods Inasmuch as

6. in question are motor oil, counterfeiting cannot be tolerated at any cost. The very fact that counterfeited products have been produced, itself indicates that the quality of the product may be suspect, as the counterfeiters are seeking to capitalize on the reputation of the appellant, and confuse Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 consumers into believing their product to be that of the appellant. As use of substandard motor oil can endanger the lives of citizens, the court has to be additionally vigilant in such cases. A bare glance at the containers of the appellant and the 7. is prima facie a rank the respondent respondent disclose that counterfeiter, who is seeking to pass off his products as the product of the appellant. The respondent has copied not only the shape of the appellant’s container, which is registered as a trademark in the appellant’s favour, but has also copied the entire layout and design of the label on the container to the extent of using the same colour scheme, design and over all appearance. To a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, there is every possibility of the product of the respondent being mistaken for that of the appellant. In these circumstances, it is clear that the appellant has 8. made out a prima facie case for grant of interlocutory injunction against the respondent as well as for appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize the infringing products.

9. The learned Single Judge has, however, dismissed the appellant’s application for interim injunction with the following observations: Vide the present plaint “18. the plaintiff seeks injunction and damages for infringement of trademarks, passing off under The Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyrights Act, 1957.

19. Though the plaintiff has averred that prior to institution of the present suit the plaintiff had conducted internet searches and found that the defendant was engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling engine oils and lubricants bearing the infringing mark and packaging on a third-party website India Mart and social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram including WhatsApp and since the cause of action for instituting the present suit has arisen in the first week of March, 2025, however, there are no documents qua either of them. As such, no case for grant of an ex-parte injunction is made out. On the plaintiff taking requisite steps,

20. issue notice to the defendant by all permissible modes, returnable before the Court on 15.05.2025.”

10. Mr. Roomi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that there was no material on record to indicate that the respondent was indulging in infringing of the appellant’s trademark and releasing in the market products which were by passing them off as appellant’s products. He has drawn our attention to documents 27 to 29, filed with the plaint. He has shown us screenshot of the representation of the respondent’s products on their India Mart, Facebook and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 YouTube social media webpages as well, which indicate that the respondents are rampantly advertising and selling their product.

11. Though the impugned order does not clearly indicate that all these submissions were advanced before the learned Single Judge, we are not proceeding on that issue as we are of the view that an issue of larger public interest is involved in the present case, which deals with counterfeit motor oils. In that view of the matter, issue notice, returnable on 22

12. September 2025. Both sides are at liberty to place short notes of their 13. respective submissions not exceeding four pages each after exchanging copies with each other at least a week in advance of the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be given to learned counsel for the

14. petitioner dasti under the signatures of the Court Master. CM APPL. 25375/2025 (Exemption)

16. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 25373/2025 (interim injunction) The appellant has made out a clear prima facie case in its 17. favour. The principles of balance of convenience and irreparable loss are also wholly in favour of grant of interlocutory injunction against the respondent and in favour of the appellant. One of us (C. Hari Shankar J), sitting singly, has already held, in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Capital General Store3, thus: extremely Counterfeiting serious matter, “33. ramifications of which extend far beyond the confines of the small shop of the petty counterfeiter. It is a commercial evil, which erodes brand value, amounts to duplicity with the trusting consumer, and, in the long run, has serious repercussions on the fabric of the national economy. A counterfeiter abandons, completely, any right to equitable consideration by a Court functioning within the confines of the rule of law. He is entitled to no sympathy, as he practices, knowingly and with complete impunity, falsehood and deception. Even while remaining within the confines of the provision with which it is seized - in this case, Order 39 Rule 2A - the Court is, therefore, required to be economically and socially sensitized, and to send a deterrent message to others who indulge, or propose to indulge, in the practice of counterfeiting.” Signature Not Verified 3 AIR 2023 Del 139 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 The Division Bench of this Court, in writ appeal, endorsed the above view. Use of counterfeit motor oil is not merely injurious to the 18. it has the pernicious appellant’s intellectual property rights; possibility of resulting in loss of life and limb. The Court has to adopt a policy of zero tolerance in such cases. The considerations of balance of 19. irreparable loss, too, therefore, justify grant of interim injunction, as sought by the appellant, till further orders. convenience In view of the aforesaid facts, till the next date of hearing, 20. the respondent and any other individuals, officers, managers, employees, agents, dealers, licensees, companies, retailers, or any other persons / entities that are related or affiliated to the respondent and all others, acting for and on behalf of respondent, individually or collectively, are restrained from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, displaying, advertising, marketing, whether directly or indirectly, and whether on the Internet or otherwise, engine oils, coolants, gear oils and lubricants and/or similar/related/allied/cognate bearing goods, respondent's Marks, ( , ACTVE, and/or packaging depicted herein, i.e. , and all other marks or packaging which are deceptively similar to the appellant's Marks and Packaging, till the next date of hearing.

21. Renotify on 22 September 2025. restrained the 22. We make it clear proceedings before the learned Single Judge which may continue unimpeded by the pendency of this appeal. that we have not CM APPL. 25374/2025 (for additional documents)

23. This application is disposed of with liberty to the appellant to file a separate application for placing additional documents on record, if and when the need so arises. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 CM APPL. 25376/2025 (appointment of Local Commissioner) A learned Local Commissioner already stands appointed by 24. the learned Single Judge by the order under challenge. However, the Local Commissioner has not been given the power to seize any infringing goods and has only been given the power to inventorize the infringing goods. In view of the prima facie finding hereinabove and keeping 25. in mind the fact that the case deals with counterfeit motor oil, we extend the remit of the Local Commissioner to seize any goods found in the premises of the respondent, which bear any mark or to the trade dress which is identical or deceptively similar registered trademarks of the appellant and to inventorize the said goods. This would, in particular, include the marks ( , ACTVE, and/or . Any labels, packing or printing material or any other material which may be found in the premises and which may be used to manufacture the infringing goods would also be inventorized and taken into custody. The goods once inventorized shall be taken into custody and handed over to the respondent under superdari. The defendant shall stand restrained from dealing with the goods in any manner, pending orders passed by this Court. The proceedings of the Local Commission shall be 26. photographed and videographed at the expense of the appellant. The Local Commissioner shall place the said evidence on record with his report. Should the need arise, the Local Commissioner would be at liberty to effect forced ingress into any premises of the respondent in order to carry out the commission. Needless to say, the respondent, or any other occupant of 27. the premises at which the commission is to be executed, would cooperate in execution of the commission. The Local Commissioner is also directed to carry out the 28. commission in a peaceful manner and not to disturb the otherwise lawful activities of the respondent, if any. Service of notice on the respondent, in the present appeal, 29. would be effected only after the commission is executed and the report of the Local Commissioner is placed on record. However, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 the learned Local Commissioner would produce a copy of the order passed to the occupants of the premises at which the commission is to be executed.

30. The Registry is also restrained from uploading this order on the website of the Court till the commission is executed and report in that regard is placed on record.

31. The application stands disposed of, accordingly. CM APPL. mediation) (exemption from pre-litigation In view of the nature of the dispute, exemption is granted

32. from the requirement of pre-litigation mediation.

33. The application is disposed of. Let the order be supplied dasti under signatures of the

34. Court Master.”

7. Despite issuance of notice in the matter, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

8. This, again, is a common feature in the cases of counterfeiting of the appellant’s products. Invariably, the counterfeiters do not turn up and contest the matter. Significantly, before the learned Single Judge, there has been no appearance on behalf of the respondent.

9. Clearly, the case is indefensible for respondent.

10. Accordingly, we make the impugned order dated 22 April 2025 absolute pending disposal of the suit before the learned Single Judge.

11. IA 10007/2025 filed before the learned Single Judge is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025

12. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. C. HARI SHANKAR, J DECEMBER 4, 2025/dsn OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025