Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Trademark Dispute Over ‘HCL’

Report on deepfakes: what the Copyright Office found and what comes next in AI regulation
January 2, 2025
Delhi HC orders suspension of fraudulent social media accounts in UPSTOX trademark case, freezes bank accounts
January 6, 2025

The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction to HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd, one of the promoter companies of the HCL Group, in its trademark infringement case against Healthcare HCL Reference Laboratories & Ors. The plaintiff, HCL Corporation, which owns the ‘HCL’ trademark and its variants, alleged that the defendants had unlawfully used the mark for healthcare services, causing confusion and misleading the public. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and restrained the defendants from using the impugned trademarks. The matter will next be heard on March 25, 2025.

HCL Corporation, represented by a team of legal counsels, contended that it is the rightful owner of the ‘HCL’ trademark, an acronym derived from Hindustan Computers Limited, which is globally recognized as a pioneer in technology and innovation. The plaintiff highlighted its adoption of the mark for healthcare services in 2012, its extensive use of the trademark across sectors, and its reputation in the market. HCL Corporation argued that the defendants had applied for trademarks similar to ‘HCL Healthcare’ in 2021 on a “proposed to be used” basis and were using identical blue-and-white color combinations for marketing healthcare services. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice, the defendants continued using the marks, allegedly aiming to associate themselves with HCL’s goodwill. HCL Corporation claimed this conduct was mala fide and created a deceptive similarity likely to confuse consumers, thereby causing irreparable harm to its brand.

The defendants, despite being served in advance, did not appear before the Court to contest the allegations. In their absence, no specific arguments were presented on their behalf. However, the Court examined the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the use of similar marks by the defendants in their marketing material and the non-compliance with the cease-and-desist notice.