Delhi High Court Restrains “Vivoline” In Trademark Infringement Suit By US-Based Automobile Lubricant Manufacturer 'Valvoline'

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed,

“The Defendants have replicated the trade dress and overall representations of Plaintiffs' goods in respect of identical goods, and the Defendants' impugned marks are deceptively, visually, and phonetically similar to those of the Plaintiffs', which is bound to contribute to confusion in the marketplace.”

The Court further found merit in Plaintiff's submission that given the volume of its sales in India, Defendants would have been aware about its mark for identical products.

Thus, it held that the adoption of the impugned marks by Defendants, “which is deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs' mark”, is not an honest adoption.

Valvoline, established in 1866, operates in India through a joint venture and claims that its trademark and its formatives have achieved significant success in the Indian lubricants and automotive market.

However, the company was aggrieved by the Defendants selling 'VIVOLINE' engine oils using similar trade dress/ packaging layout etc.

Since all the defendants, including the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailers failed to file a reply in the matter, the Court proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC which empowers it to pass order, as it deems fit, when a party fails to present a written statement.

The Court observed,

“The unrebutted averments made in the plaint and the documents on record show that the Defendants are engaging in unfair competition by manufacturing and marketing their products using mark/tradedress/packaging/get-up/layout/artwork that infringes upon the Plaintiffs' trademarks registrations. The Defendants, knowingly or unknowingly, aim to mislead consumers into believing their products are associated with the Plaintiffs, thus violating the trademark rights that the Plaintiffs have cultivated over years of business and marketing endeavours.”

As such, it permanently restrained the defendants from using 'Vivoline' mark.

Appearance: Mr. Krisna Gambhir and Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Advs for Plaitniffs; Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are exparte Mr. Durgesh Singh, Adv. for D-3

Case title: VGP IPCO LLC & Anr v. Mr Suresh Kumar Trading As Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1056

Case no.: CS(COMM) 821/2024

Click here to read order