This article is written by Shagun Srivastava from Allahabad state university (5-year integrated BA LLB course 2020-25) during my internship at LeDroit India.
Parties Involved:
- Plaintiffs:
- Aktiebolaget Volvo and affiliated Volvo Group companies, including Volvo Trademark Holding AB, Volvo Car Corporation, and Volvo Trucks Corporation. These are Swedish corporations globally recognized for manufacturing trucks, buses, construction equipment, and premium vehicles. They operate in India via subsidiaries such as Volvo India Pvt Ltd and Volvo Auto India Pvt Ltd.
- Defendants:
- M/s Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs (a sole proprietorship engaged in manufacturing and fabricating buses and bus bodies).
- Rishabh Bus Private Limited (inter-city bus service operator purchasing buses from Defendant 1).
- Shanti Travels (another inter-city bus operator using similar designs but substituting the “VOLVO” mark with “SHANTI” inside similar grille motifs).
Background & Allegations:
- The plaintiffs have a registered and well-known trademark “VOLVO” in India, used extensively since 1915 in the transportation and automotive sector.
- Defendants 1 to 3 were manufacturing, marketing, and operating buses that were deceptively similar or near identical in appearance to Volvo buses, including use of the distinctive Volvo grille-slash mark, a 3D motif iconic to Volvo’s brand identity.
- The defendants used the “VOLVO” mark and similar trade dress on buses and public-facing inter-city services, misleading consumers into believing there was an association or endorsement by the plaintiffs.
- Defendant 1 admitted to manufacturing and selling such infringing buses over 100-125 times, thereby compounding the harm to the plaintiffs’ established goodwill.
- Defendant 3 also used a grille motif like Volvo’s but replaced the mark “VOLVO” with “SHANTI,” still creating consumer confusion.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiffs, Aktiebolaget Volvo, Volvo Trademark Holding AB, Volvo Car Corporation, and Volvo Trucks Corporation, are entities established under Swedish law, primarily involved in the “transportation and automotive sector, which includes the manufacturing of spare parts, accessories, and ancillary components for vehicles”. Aktiebolaget Volvo is recognized as a “global leader in heavy commercial vehicles, including trucks, buses, and construction machinery, as well as in drive systems for marine and industrial uses” and established ‘Volvo India Pvt Ltd.’ in India in 1996. Volvo Car Corporation is responsible for producing and distributing a premium selection of automobiles and introduced models in India in September 2007 through its subsidiary ‘Volvo Auto India Pvt Ltd.’. The name/mark ‘VOLVO’ constitutes a “notable and significant element of the corporate names of various companies that are part of the ‘VOLVO’ Group”.
Court’s Reasoning:
The High Court observed that “Defendant No. 1 has acknowledged the manufacturing and sale of buses featuring the infringing logos on over 100-125 occasions. Should the defendants’ actions continue unchecked, the use of the infringing grille slash trademarks on any bus will proliferate, leading to the erosion of the exclusivity associated with the plaintiffs’ buses, which will ultimately disappear over time.” The Bench remarked, “Considering the aforementioned, the actions of the defendants are infringing upon the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiffs concerning the suit trademarks. The defendants have intentionally and dishonestly replicated and produced counterfeit products of the plaintiffs’ renowned items that bear the suit trademarks. The defendants’ endeavour to utilize the suit trademarks is merely a mala fide effort to exploit the plaintiffs’ rights, constituting infringement and passing off of the suit trademarks, with the sole aim of capitalizing on the plaintiffs’ substantial reputation and goodwill to gain significant publicity, marketing, and business advantages.
Additional Outcomes & Related Proceedings:
In a related lawsuit in 2024, where Volvo is opposing Lamina Suspension Products Ltd., the Court acknowledged the recognized status of the VOLVO trademark in India, upheld permanent injunctions, and granted damages, thereby demonstrating a consistent safeguarding of Volvo’s intellectual property rights.The Delhi High Court has shown a definitive approach towards the protection of trademarks that hold international recognition and in preventing counterfeit or unauthorized usage by third parties.
Summary:
The Delhi High Court, in Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. Shri Ganesh Motor Body Repairs & Ors. (CS (COMM) 601/2025), acted decisively to safeguard Volvo’s trademark rights. By granting an ex parte interim injunction, the Court:
- Recognized the well-known status of the “VOLVO” trademark in India.
- Found that defendants deliberately infringed and passed off fake or lookalike buses.
- Emphasized the importance of trademark exclusivity and consumer protection.
- Restricted defendants from using Volvo’s marks and trade dress on buses and related services.
- Ensured that Volvo’s reputation and goodwill are maintained pending final adjudication
Conclusion:
The Court deemed it unwise to attempt to ‘calculate’ the amount of time lost in individual cases by relying on visual impressions obtained from reviewing the CCTV footage, and subsequently determining ‘improvisation marks/grace marks’. ‘Given the circumstances, this Court does not consider the Disha Panchal (supra) methodology to be relevant or suitable for the current cases. As a result, the directives in the contested order that instructed the writ petitioners to be granted ‘grace marks’ through the application of the ‘normalization formula’ established in Disha Panchal (supra), along with other related directives, are hereby annulled,’ it concluded. Consequently, the Court instructed the Appellant to enhance the biometric processes for future examinations and concurred with the directives outlined in the contested Judgment, which stated that it would be appropriate for the NTA to establish a Grievance Redressal Framework to address the complaints and grievances of candidates in a timely manner. Thus, the High Court resolved the Appeals.
