Delhi High Court Grants VOLVO an Ex Parte Injunction Against 'MAX VOLVO' and 'MAX VOLWO' Lubricants
A trademark injunction is often most useful before the other side knows it is coming. In an order of 24 September 2026 in Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v. a Pune-based lubricants trader (CS(COMM) 940/2026), the Delhi High Court explained when it will grant one without first hearing the defendant, and did so for the owners of the VOLVO mark.
The dispute
The plaintiffs own the VOLVO trademark, which they describe as a coined word adopted in 1915 and recorded as a well-known mark in India. They hold registrations in Class 4, which covers lubricating and industrial oils and greases. The defendant, a sole proprietorship, sold lubricants, engine oil and gear oil under the marks "MAX VOLVO" and "MAX VOLWO". The plaintiffs found the products on an online trading platform and through an investigator, and the defendant had also applied to register a mark that drew an objection.
Deceptive similarity
At the prima facie stage, the court found:
- "MAX VOLVO" reproduces the whole VOLVO mark, and "MAX" is a laudatory word that, if anything, suggests a premium VOLVO product.
- "MAX VOLWO" swaps a single letter and is practically identical when spoken.
- The goods and trade channels are the same, and where the similarity amounts to imitation, differences in get-up do not help the defendant.
Why no notice was given
In Indian civil procedure, notice is the rule and an ex parte injunction is the exception, so the court must record its reasons. Here the court found a real risk that the stock would be dispersed if the defendant were warned. According to the order, the record showed cash dealings, substantial stock at an office-cum-warehouse, a move away from the address on the defendant's GST registration and a readiness to ship goods across state lines.
The court also rejected the idea that the plaintiffs had delayed. They had investigated, obtained a supply quotation and filed a protest letter against the defendant's trademark application. Mere delay does not defeat an injunction where infringement is continuing.
On balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the court noted that lubricants affect vehicle performance, so poor-quality goods could damage the reputation of a mark used for over a century. The order restrains use of the marks and directs the takedown of the online listings, including on IndiaMART, within a week of service. The defendant can still trade under a non-infringing name and may apply to vary the order after appearing.
Why it matters
For brand owners in Asia facing lookalike marks, the order is a practical checklist: show concrete evidence that the goods could vanish, keep a clear and honest timeline, and act against the infringer's own trademark filing. Courts expect the three-part test to be argued on the facts, not just recited.
Sources
Do you or your clients need trademark, patent, annuity or industrial design work in Indonesia? We handle filings, prosecution and renewals, with updates in English. Email us for a quote.
Contact UsIf you enjoyed this article on our portal, you can buy me a coffee via the PayPal link below.
PayPal
