Delhi High Court Stops Use of Fake ‘Valvoline’ Marks

Delhi High Court Stops Use of Fake ‘Valvoline’ Marks. The Delhi High Court has made a strong decision in favour of the famous lubricant brand Valvoline. In the case VGP IPCO LLC & Anr. v. Mr. Suresh Kumar trading as Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from using similar names and packaging.
Case Background
Valvoline is a global brand of engine oils. The company has been using the ‘VALVOLINE’ mark since 1866 and got it registered in India as early as 1942. In India, its sales in 2022–23 were more than Rs.2150 crores. IN 2024, Valvoline found that the defendants were selling lubricants under the names ‘VIVOLINE’ and other lookalike marks. They also copied Valvoline’s packaging, trade dress, and overall product design. These fake goods were being sold offline and online through platforms like IndiaMart and Facebook.
Court Proceedings
September 2024: The plaintiffs filed the case for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
October 2024: Summons were issued. Two defendants appeared and said they had no objection to the injunction. The Court passed an interim injunction.
The defendants never filed a written statement within the legal time limit. By March 2025, their right to file was closed, and some were proceeded ex parte. The Court also noted that Defendant had once applied for registration of a similar mark in 2018. That application was opposed by Valvoline, and later the defendant filed for withdrawal in December 2024, which was still pending.
Court’s Findings
The plaintiffs’ documents, sales figures, and trademark registration were not challenged by the defendants. Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, when a defendant does not file a written statement, the Court can decide the case based on the plaint and evidence. The Court compared the marks and packaging and found that the defendants had copied Valvoline’s trade dress and brand style, which would surely confuse customers. The adoption of these marks was dishonest, especially since Valvoline is a well-known brand in India. The defendants’ actions amounted to unfair competition and an attempt to mislead buyers.
Relevant Sections
The Judgment Referred to key provisions of the Trademark act, 1999.
Section 28 – Exclusive Rights of the Proprietor
Under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, This section grants the registered trademark proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. It also empowers the proprietor to take legal action against any unauthorized use or infringement and to license or assign the mark, thereby protecting its commercial value.
Section 29 – Infringement of Trademark
Section 29 defines when infringement occurs if a person uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark without authorization, in a way that causes confusion, association, or dilution of distinctiveness. It covers both identical goods/services and, in certain cases, even unrelated goods if the mark is well-known.
Section 135 – Empowers courts to grant reliefs in infringement cases, including injunctions, damages, or account of profits
Section 135 empowers courts to grant both interim and permanent remedies in infringement cases. These include temporary and permanent injunctions, damages or account of profits, delivery and destruction of infringing goods, and award of litigation costs.
Order VIII Rule 10, CPC – Allows court to pronounce judgment when no written statement is filed.
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – These rules allow the court to grant a temporary injunction to stop a party from doing something during the pendency of the case, if such action may cause irreparable harm or lead to injustice.
Delhi High Court Ruling
The Court: Granted a permanent injunction stopping the defendants from using the infringing marks and packaging. Directed the Trademark Registry to process the defendant’s withdrawal application (filed in December 2024) within four weeks. Cancelled all pending applications and future dates in the case.
Conclusion
This case shows that Indian courts give strong protection to well-known trademarks like Valvoline. If a defendant does not file a proper defense, the court can decide the matter directly on the basis of the plaintiff’s documents and evidence. The judgment also sends a clear message that copying packaging, trade dress, or using deceptively similar marks amounts to infringement, passing off, and unfair competition under the Trademarks Act. 
FAQs 
Q1. What was the case about?
Ans. The case involved Valvoline, a well-known lubricant brand, against Om Shiv Lubricants and others who were selling products under names like VIVOLINE and using similar packaging. The Court found this amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
Q2. Why is Valvoline considered a well-known mark in India?
Ans. Valvoline has been in use since 1866 and registered in India since 1942. With sales of more than Rs.2150 crores in 2022–23, it is recognized as a reputed and trusted brand in the lubricant industry.
Q3. What evidence helped Valvoline win the case?
Ans. The plaintiffs produced trademark registrations, sales figures, and product packaging samples. Since the defendants failed to file a written statement, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence as undisputed.
Q4. Which provisions of law were applied by the Court?
Ans. The Court relied on:

Section 28 (exclusive rights of the proprietor)

Section 29 (infringement of trademark)

Section 135 (reliefs like injunctions, damages, etc.)

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC (judgment when no defense is filed)

Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (temporary injunctions)

Q5. What relief did the Court grant?
Ans. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and packaging. It also directed the Trademark Registry to process the defendants’ withdrawal application and cancelled all pending proceedings.
Q6. Why is this judgment important?
Ans. The ruling reinforces that Indian courts provide strong protection to well-known trademarks. It shows that copying trade dress, packaging, or deceptively similar names is treated as unfair competition and will not be tolerated.
Q7. What happens if defendants don’t file a written statement?
Ans. Under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, the Court can decide the matter based on the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, as happened in this case.
Q8. What message does this send to businesses?
Ans. It warns companies that attempting to imitate or pass off on a reputed brand’s goodwill can result in immediate injunctions, damages, and destruction of counterfeit goods.

The Delhi High Court has made a strong decision in favour of the famous lubricant brand Valvoline. In the case VGP IPCO LLC & Anr. v. Mr. Suresh Kumar trading as Om Shiv Lubricants & Ors. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from using similar names and packaging.

Case Background

Valvoline is a global brand of engine oils. The company has been using the ‘VALVOLINE’ mark since 1866 and got it registered in India as early as 1942. In India, its sales in 2022–23 were more than Rs.2150 crores. IN 2024, Valvoline found that the defendants were selling lubricants under the names ‘VIVOLINE’ and other lookalike marks. They also copied Valvoline’s packaging, trade dress, and overall product design. These fake goods were being sold offline and online through platforms like IndiaMart and Facebook.

Court Proceedings

September 2024: The plaintiffs filed the case for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.

October 2024: Summons were issued. Two defendants appeared and said they had no objection to the injunction. The Court passed an interim injunction.

The defendants never filed a written statement within the legal time limit. By March 2025, their right to file was closed, and some were proceeded ex parte. The Court also noted that Defendant had once applied for registration of a similar mark in 2018. That application was opposed by Valvoline, and later the defendant filed for withdrawal in December 2024, which was still pending.

Court’s Findings

The plaintiffs’ documents, sales figures, and trademark registration were not challenged by the defendants. Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, when a defendant does not file a written statement, the Court can decide the case based on the plaint and evidence. The Court compared the marks and packaging and found that the defendants had copied Valvoline’s trade dress and brand style, which would surely confuse customers. The adoption of these marks was dishonest, especially since Valvoline is a well-known brand in India. The defendants’ actions amounted to unfair competition and an attempt to mislead buyers.

Relevant Sections

The Judgment Referred to key provisions of the Trademark act, 1999.

Section 28 – Exclusive Rights of the Proprietor

Under Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, This section grants the registered trademark proprietor the exclusive right to use the mark in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered. It also empowers the proprietor to take legal action against any unauthorized use or infringement and to license or assign the mark, thereby protecting its commercial value.

Section 29 – Infringement of Trademark

Section 29 defines when infringement occurs if a person uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark without authorization, in a way that causes confusion, association, or dilution of distinctiveness. It covers both identical goods/services and, in certain cases, even unrelated goods if the mark is well-known.

Section 135 – Empowers courts to grant reliefs in infringement cases, including injunctions, damages, or account of profits

Section 135 empowers courts to grant both interim and permanent remedies in infringement cases. These include temporary and permanent injunctions, damages or account of profits, delivery and destruction of infringing goods, and award of litigation costs.

Order VIII Rule 10, CPC – Allows court to pronounce judgment when no written statement is filed.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) – These rules allow the court to grant a temporary injunction to stop a party from doing something during the pendency of the case, if such action may cause irreparable harm or lead to injustice.

Delhi High Court Ruling

The Court: Granted a permanent injunction stopping the defendants from using the infringing marks and packaging. Directed the Trademark Registry to process the defendant’s withdrawal application (filed in December 2024) within four weeks. Cancelled all pending applications and future dates in the case.

Conclusion

This case shows that Indian courts give strong protection to well-known trademarks like Valvoline. If a defendant does not file a proper defense, the court can decide the matter directly on the basis of the plaintiff’s documents and evidence. The judgment also sends a clear message that copying packaging, trade dress, or using deceptively similar marks amounts to infringement, passing off, and unfair competition under the Trademarks Act.

FAQs

Q1. What was the case about?

Ans. The case involved Valvoline, a well-known lubricant brand, against Om Shiv Lubricants and others who were selling products under names like VIVOLINE and using similar packaging. The Court found this amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.

Q2. Why is Valvoline considered a well-known mark in India?

Ans. Valvoline has been in use since 1866 and registered in India since 1942. With sales of more than Rs.2150 crores in 2022–23, it is recognized as a reputed and trusted brand in the lubricant industry.

Q3. What evidence helped Valvoline win the case?

Ans. The plaintiffs produced trademark registrations, sales figures, and product packaging samples. Since the defendants failed to file a written statement, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ evidence as undisputed.

Q4. Which provisions of law were applied by the Court?

Ans. The Court relied on:

Section 28 (exclusive rights of the proprietor)
Section 29 (infringement of trademark)
Section 135 (reliefs like injunctions, damages, etc.)
Order VIII Rule 10 CPC (judgment when no defense is filed)
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (temporary injunctions)

Q5. What relief did the Court grant?

Ans. The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing marks and packaging. It also directed the Trademark Registry to process the defendants’ withdrawal application and cancelled all pending proceedings.

Q6. Why is this judgment important?

Ans. The ruling reinforces that Indian courts provide strong protection to well-known trademarks. It shows that copying trade dress, packaging, or deceptively similar names is treated as unfair competition and will not be tolerated.

Q7. What happens if defendants don’t file a written statement?

Ans. Under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, the Court can decide the matter based on the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence, as happened in this case.

Q8. What message does this send to businesses?

Ans. It warns companies that attempting to imitate or pass off on a reputed brand’s goodwill can result in immediate injunctions, damages, and destruction of counterfeit goods.