Deliberately Misled Consumers: Delhi HC Decrees Castrol Ltd's Trademark Infringement Suit Against Engine Oil Manufacturers, Awards ₹20 Lakh

Justice Mini Pushkarna awarded Rs. 20 lakh of costs and damages to Castrol, decreeing the suit against engine oil manufacturers under the brand Kapil Auto Workshop and Makkvoll Lubricants.

"Upon a careful comparison of the trade dress of the plaintiff and that of the defendants, it becomes apparent that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants‟ impugned packaging is nearly identical to that of the plaintiff‟s trade dress. The defendants have evidently used nearly identical/deceptively similar two tone green and white background for the label on their packaging. Further, the layout of the defendants‟ label, with white colour in the upper half and a circular green, highlight for placement of similar device element/ is another deliberate attempt on part of the defendants to mislead and confuse the consumers as to the true identity and association of its goods," the court said. 

Castrol sought permanent injunction against the defendant nos. 1 & 2 from manufacturing, selling, advertising & exporting engine oils, coolants, gear oils and lubricants bearing Castrol's ACTIV and ACTIBOND trademark, and packaging anything that is deceptively similar to its marks.

Castrol stated that it came across two Facebook profiles belonging to defendant no. 2 under the names 'Makkvoll Lubricants' and 'Makkvoll Engine Oil' and a Facebook group by the name 'All India Lubricant Manufacturers' advertising and offering for sale products with infringing marks and packaging. It stated that defendant no. 2's products were being manufactured and sold by defendant no. 1 through its brick-and-mortar store in Rajasthan.

It stated that defendants are using the infringing marks and packaging openly to mislead customers and to ride upon its goodwill and reputation.

Castrol referred to Local Commissioner's report, which stated defendant no. 1 was manufacturing the infringing products and had found multiple boxes of the infringed products in the store.

Referring to the Local Commissioner's report, the Court noted, “Perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that defendant no. 1 has been dealing with, manufacturing and marketing its products under the infringing marks and packaging, in large commercial quantities.” It also noted that defendant no. 2 was offering for sale the infringing products through various Facebook pages, profiles and posts. The Court also took note listing of the impugned products on IndiaMart website with the trade names of defendants.

Comparing the trade dresses of Castrol and defendants, the Court noted that the overall colour scheme, get-up and layout of the defendants' packaging is nearly identical to Castrol's trade dress.

It also observed that the defendants merely added 'E' to the Catrol's 'Activ' mark with identical font and style. Further, that the defendants copied Catrol's 'Actibond' mark in its entirety and are using it to package the impugned products.

Noting that no written statement was filed by the defendants within stipulated time and no defence was raised, the Court proceeded with a summary judgment.

The Court held that the defendants infringed Castrol's trademark and trade dress. It thus issued a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or advertising engine oils, coolants, gear oils and lubricants the impugned products.

The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lakh each on defendant nos. 1 & 2, to be paid to Catrol within six months. It further granted liberty to Castrol to visit the premises of defendant no. 1 to destroy the goods bearing its mark/packaging.

Case title: CASTROL LIMITED vs. KAPIL & ANR.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 239