Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Nitish Kumar & ORS

Deliberate misuse of a reputed trademark, domain name and copyrighted material to fraudulently solicit dealership payments can justify permanent injunction, damages and costs.

SHORT DESCRIPTION ABOUT THE CASE:

This case concerns the unauthorized use of the well-known “HERO ELECTRIC” trademark and related copyright material through a deceptive dealership website. The defendants represented themselves as authorised persons offering HERO Electric vehicle dealerships and collected money from members of the public. The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction and awarded substantial damages and litigation costs.

FACTS:

Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited was engaged in the business of electric vehicles and related infrastructure. The plaintiffs' group owned registered trademarks including HERO and HERO ELECTRIC and had developed distinctive logos, website material, brochures and other artistic works.

The defendants operated a website under the domain name “evbikedealership.online” and used the name “Hero Electric” and “Hero Motocrop” while soliciting dealership enquiries from members of the public.

The defendants represented that they were authorised to provide HERO Electric dealerships. They collected money from prospective investors as registration or application fees and used the plaintiffs' trademark on purported dealership approval letters and identity cards.

The bank records disclosed substantial transactions. The Court noted that approximately ₹8–10 lakh had been collected from members of the public through the deceptive scheme.

The defendants did not enter appearance or file a written statement despite service and were proceeded against ex parte.

FINDINGS:

The Court found that the defendants had dishonestly adopted and used the plaintiffs' registered trademarks and copyright material.

The use of “Hero Electric” on the deceptive website, false dealership communications and fabricated approval documents was intended to create the impression that the defendants were authorised representatives of the plaintiffs.

The Court also considered the transfer of the impugned domain name to the plaintiffs pursuant to earlier directions.

Since the defendants had not contested the plaint or supporting documents, the Court held that there was no reason to disbelieve the plaintiffs' evidence. Under the applicable IPD Rules, the Court could proceed without requiring formal ex parte evidence in the circumstances.

The Court found that the conduct caused irreparable injury to the plaintiffs and also harmed members of the public who were deceived into making payments.

The Court considered the principles governing exemplary and punitive damages, particularly where infringement is deliberate and calculated.

SUGGESTION:

Brand owners should monitor domain names, websites, social-media pages and online dealership advertisements using their trademarks.

Where a fraudulent website uses the trademark to collect money from the public, the proprietor should consider seeking urgent relief not only against the direct infringer but also against the domain registrar, payment intermediaries and banks where appropriate.

It is also important to preserve screenshots, domain-registration information, fraudulent emails, payment details, fake documents and customer complaints, since such evidence can establish both infringement and fraudulent intent.

JUDGMENT / PRINCIPLE:

The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants were permanently restrained from using the plaintiffs' trademarks and copyrighted material.

The Court awarded ₹20,00,000 as damages and ₹3,00,000 as litigation costs, jointly and severally against defendants 1 and 2.

The case demonstrates that deliberate trademark infringement combined with fraudulent online conduct can attract not merely an injunction but also significant monetary consequences.