Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Order Restraining 'HP+' Mark Over Similarity With 'HP' Screw Brand

The Delhi High Court's division bench has upheld an interim order stopping Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based maker of screws, from using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+” on its products. The court held that using these marks for self-drilling screws and related goods infringes the registered “HP” trademark owned by Landmark Crafts Pvt. Ltd A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on December 23, 2025, dismissing an appeal filed by Ganraj Enterprises against an order of the Commercial Court at Shahdara. The court had granted interim protection in favour of Landmark Crafts.Landmark Crafts, which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of self-drilling screws and blind rivets, traced the origin of its “HP” mark to 1995 through its predecessor entities. It relied on trademark registrations obtained in 2007 and 2014 for the word mark “HP” in Class 6 for self-drilling screws. The company stated that these registrations were subsequently assigned to it and that it has been using the mark continuously across India, acquiring substantial goodwill and reputation.The dispute arose in June 2022, when Landmark Crafts discovered that Ganraj Enterprises was manufacturing and selling identical products using the marks “HP+” and “HP®+”. It alleged that the rival business was also using similar packaging, including a shikara boat motif, similar colour scheme and was illegally using the '®' symbol despite having no registered trademark, thereby misleading consumers. Following the continued use of the disputed marks despite a cease-and-desist notice, Landmark Crafts approached the Commercial Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the use of the rival marks. An application for interim injunction was also filed along with the suit, seeking interim injunction against Ganraj Enterprises, which came to be allowed by the Commercial Court. Ganraj Enterprises challenged the grant of interim injunction by questioning the validity and territorial scope of Landmark Crafts' trademark registrations and alleging that the “HP” mark was subject to territorial restrictions limited to Uttar Pradesh. It also claimed bona fide use of “HP+” since 2014 and accused Landmark Crafts of fabricating documents relating to prior use.Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that, at the interim stage, the existence of a registered trademark raises a statutory presumption of validity. The court found that Landmark Crafts held a prima facie valid registration of the “HP” mark without any territorial usage restriction on its later trademark registration. The Court also observed that Landmark's “HP” mark and rival marks “HP+” and “HP®+” were practically identical and used for identical goods, thereby attracting the infringement provisions under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court took particular note of Ganraj Enterprises' use of the '®' symbol despite having no registered trademark, observing that such conduct increased the likelihood of consumer confusion and showed lack of bona fides. It also noted the similarity in packaging and branding, including the replication of distinctive elements used by Landmark Crafts.“Once there is a prima facie finding of infringement, and a prima facie validly registered trade mark of the plaintiff, Section 28(1) entitles the plaintiff to immediate relief against such infringement, which would include grant of interlocutory injunction,” the court said.Holding that the case involved rank infringement, the Bench noted that Ganraj Enterprises had replicated the shikara logo, the “LE” acronym, identical colour schemes and had unauthorisedly used the '®' symbol, for which reason it was not entitled to any relief.Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's interim order restraining Ganraj Enterprises from using the disputed marks during the pendency of the suit.Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises & Ors. v. Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1768Case No.: FAO (COMM) 66/2024For the Appellants: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sindhwani with Advocates Rajat Bhardwaj, Sandeep Khatri and Ujjwal BhardwajFor the Respondents: Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak with Advocates Stuti Wason, Vipin Wason, Avinash Sharma and Raunaq DalalClick Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Order Restraining 'HP+' Mark Over Similarity With 'HP' Screw Brand

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Order Restraining 'HP+' Mark Over Similarity With 'HP' Screw Brand

Ayushi Shukla

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers