The Hero Trademark Litigation: Injunctions, Infringement & Brand Protection

The Hero Trademark Litigation: Injunctions, Infringement & Brand Protection. The dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited is one of the most important trademark battles arising out of a family business split in India. After the Munjal family divided their vast “Hero Group” empire in 2010, strict rules were created about who could use the valuable “HERO” brand name. When questions arose about whether those rules were being followed in the bicycle business, the matter reached multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. The case highlights how family settlement agreements and trademark rights interact under Indian law and how seriously courts treat brand protection.
Background of the Hero Brand and Family Division
A big Indian family, the Munjals, who built a massive business empire from scratch. They originally came from Pakistan before India's partition in 1947, settled in Amritsar, and then moved to Ludhiana (Punjab). They started small by making bicycle parts and grew into one of the world's biggest cycle makers, later expanding to motorcycles, auto parts, and more. The company was called the "Hero Group," famous for the "HERO" brand.
The founders were four brothers: Brijmohan Lall, Om Prakash, Satyanand, and Dayanand. As the family grew, their kids and grandkids got involved, and things got complicated. By 2010, the family decided to split the business to avoid fights. They were divided into four groups:

F-1 Group: Led by Vijay Munjal (son of Dayanand). They have businesses like electric vehicles, renewable energy, medical products, and exports/imports of bike parts and electric two-wheelers.

F-2 and F-3 Groups: Other branches, but they're not central to this fight.

F-4 Group: Led by Om Prakash Munjal and later by his son, Pankaj Munjal. They kept the core bicycle business.

The 2010 Family Settlement and Trademark Allocation
The split was done through a Family Settlement Agreement and a Trademark and Name Agreement (TMNA) in 2010. The Key rules about the "HERO" name, which is a registered trademark under India's Trademark Act, 1999 basically, a law that says only the owner can use a brand name to sell a product, to prevent customer confusion:

F-4 (Hero Cycles Limited) got exclusive rights to use "HERO", with its logo or monogram. For bicycles, tricycles, and auto parts. No one else in the family could use it for those products in India.

F-1 (Hero Ecotech Limited, originally part of Hero Exports) could use "HERO" for electric vehicles and for exporting bicycles to most countries (but not places like the USA, EU, or Japan). But they could not use "HERO" as a prefix, suffix, or alone. for making or selling bicycles in India. They could do a bicycle business, but only under a different name.

In 2011, there was a small "realignment" agreement to tweak some details, but it didn't change the big rules; there was no "HERO" for F-1's bicycles in India.
Everything was fine until F-1's company Hero Ecotech started making bicycles under the brand "KROSS." They printed their company name, "Hero Ecotech Ltd." on the packaging, and sometimes they used "HERO KROSS," which linked "HERO" to bikes. F-4 saw this as sneaky; customers might think these bikes were from the original "HERO" family, causing confusion and hurting their sales. 
Legal Provisions Involved
The dispute invoked the Trademarks Act, 1999, alongside the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), given the family agreements and injunction enforcement. Key provisions include:

Section 9(2)(a) – Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Prohibits registration of marks likely to deceive or confuse the public. Hero Cycles argued Hero Ecotech's use misled consumers about product origins.

Section 11(1)(a) – Relative Grounds for Refusal: Bars registration if a mark is similar to an earlier one for similar goods, causing confusion. Hero Cycles claimed priority based on the 2010 agreements and historical goodwill.

Sections 27-29: Prohibit infringement by using a similar mark that confuses buyers. and passing off pretending your product is someone else's.

Section 34 – Prior Use Protection: Protects prior users from infringement claims if use predates registration.

Section 57 – Rectification and Cancellation: Allows aggrieved parties to seek removal of wrongly registered marks, though not directly applied here as the suit focused on infringement.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Temporary Injunctions: Empowers courts to grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm.

Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC – Consequences of Disobedience: Provides for contempt proceedings (e.g., attachment of property or imprisonment) if injunctions are violated.

Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC: Allows variation or vacation of injunctions upon application.

Family Settlement Agreement (2010): Treated as a binding contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10: Agreements are enforceable if made with free consent and lawful purpose.
Key clauses:

Clause 1.1.7(d): F-1 cannot use "HERO" for bicycles in India.

Clause 2(viii): Any group can make bicycles, but without "HERO" or its logo.

Clause 5.6: Disputes go to arbitration in New Delhi under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (a law for private resolution, but it wasn't used here as the case went to court).

Constitution of India, Article 227: Gives high courts power to supervise lower courts and fix errors, used by Hero Ecotech to challenge trial court decisions.
Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Requires companies to print their name and address on products. which Hero Ecotech cited as why they used "Hero Ecotech Ltd." on packaging. 
Alleged Infringement and Passing Off (2014)
In 2014, F-4 (Hero Cycles Limited and Om Prakash Munjal) sued F-1 (Hero Ecotech Limited and Vijay Munjal) in the Patna District Court (Title Suit No. 5031/2014).
Why Patna? Because Hero Ecotech was selling bikes there through a dealer (Kumar Cycle Stores), the court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Hero Cycles asked for a permanent injunction to block Hero Ecotech from using "HERO" in any way for bicycles in India. They claimed it violated the 2010 agreement and the Trademark Act, Sections 27-29: You can't use someone else's mark if it confuses buyers.
The trial court ordered an interim injunction
On September 22, 2014, the trial court gave an ex-parte interim injunction. This meant Hero Ecotech had to immediately stop using "HERO" for bikes until the full case was decided.
Why temporary? Courts do this to prevent harm while the trial goes on; if you wait, the damage might be irreversible.
Hero Ecotech fought back by filing under CPC Order 39 Rule 4 to cancel or change the temporary order. They said: We're not using 'HERO' as a trademark, just our legal company name, 'KROSS', is totally different, no confusion. Also, the agreement allows us to make bikes, just not with HERO. And this should go to arbitration, not the court.
Trial Court Upholds the Injunction Order (2015)
On March 21, 2015, the Patna trial court rejected Hero Ecotech's request to cancel the injunction. The judge said Hero Cycles had a strong case using "HERO" in the company name on bike packaging could still confuse people, violating the exclusive rights. The injunction stayed.
Appeal to Patna High Court (2015)
Hero Ecotech appealed to the Patna High Court (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 121 of 2015). On July 7, 2015, Justice Shivaji Pandey ruled in their favour. He said:

Printing the company name "Hero Ecotech Ltd." isn't trademark use; it's just identification, and Hero Cycles even admitted this in other documents.

"KROSS" looks nothing like "HERO" (different logo, no deception).

Hero Cycles didn't prove irreparable harm, or that the balance favoured them; the injunction was hurting Hero Ecotech's business more.

The trial court messed up by not properly checking the three injunction tests.

The High Court cancelled the injunction. 
Supreme Court Steps In, Injunction Back On (2016)
Hero Cycles appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 8478/2016). The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court's 2015 decision and restored the trial court's original injunction. They agreed with Hero Cycles: Even the company name on packaging could link "HERO" to bikes, causing confusion and breaching the family deal. Hero Ecotech was again blocked from any "HERO" association with bicycles.
Alleged Violations and Contempt Fight (2019)
After 2016, Hero Cycles claimed Hero Ecotech kept violating the injunction and still used "HERO" subtly on bikes or packaging. They filed a contempt application under CPC Order 39 Rule 2A in the Patna trial court.
On September 7, 2019, the trial court agreed and started separate contempt proceedings.
Hero Ecotech challenged this in the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution (lets high courts oversee lower courts to fix errors). The High Court set aside the 2019 order, saying the trial court didn't handle the contempt application properly, with no full hearing or evidence check.
In Supreme Court, Contempt Proceedings Restored (2026)
Hero Cycles appealed to the Supreme Court (Special Leave Petition turned into Civil Appeal No. 1478/2026). On February 10, 2026, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled:
The Patna High Court was wrong to cancel everything without ensuring a proper inquiry. Under Order 39 Rule 2A, if someone claims a violation, the court must investigate fairly, hear both sides, and look at evidence. They set aside both the 2025 High Court and 2019 trial court orders, but restored the contempt application to the trial court for a fresh, proper decision.
What it means
As of February 2026, the injunction against Hero Ecotech using "HERO" for bikes is still in place (from the 2016 Supreme Court order). The contempt issue is being re-examined, and the full trial on trademark rights hasn't finished yet. Hero Cycles has mostly won the big battles, protecting their exclusive "HERO" for cycles. Hero Ecotech can sell under "KROSS," but can't touch "HERO."
Conclusion
The Hero Cycles vs. Hero Ecotech dispute clearly shows how powerful and strict Indian trademark law is in protecting brand identity. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a registered owner gets strong exclusive rights, and even indirect or subtle use of a protected mark can lead to injunctions and contempt action. The courts consistently recognised that the “HERO” mark carries huge goodwill in the bicycle market and that any use likely to create confusion must be stopped. This case highlights that trademark rights are not just about logos but about protecting reputation, preventing customer confusion, and enforcing binding family or business agreements. It sends a clear message to Indian businesses that once trademark rights are legally divided or assigned, courts will strictly enforce exclusivity to safeguard brand value.
FAQs
Q1. What is the main dispute in this case?
Ans. It is a family fight over who can use the "HERO" brand name for bicycles in India after the Munjal family business split in 2010. Hero Cycles has exclusive rights for bicycles, while Hero Ecotech was barred from using "HERO" for regular bikes sold in India.
Q2. Which family branches are fighting?
Ans. Hero Cycles belongs to the Om Prakash Munjal branch (later led by Pankaj Munjal). Hero Ecotech belongs to the Dayanand Munjal branch (led by Vijay Munjal).
Q3. What key document created the problem?
Ans. The 2010 Family Settlement Agreement divided the Hero Group businesses among four family groups. It gave exclusive "HERO" bicycle rights to Hero Cycles and banned Hero Ecotech from using "HERO" for bicycles in India.
Q4. What is the most important court order still in force?
Ans. In 2016 the Supreme Court restored a temporary injunction banning Hero Ecotech from using "HERO" (even in company name) for bicycles in India. This injunction remains active as of February 2026.
Q5. Can Hero Ecotech sell bicycles at all?
Ans. Yes, they can and do sell bicycles under the separate brand name "KROSS". They are only prohibited from using "HERO" in connection with bicycles sold in India.
Q6. What law protects the "HERO" name?
Ans. The Trademark Act, 1999 (mainly Sections 27–29) protects registered trademarks from infringement and passing off. "HERO" is a registered trademark owned by Hero Cycles for bicycles.
Q7. What is the contempt issue about?
Ans. Hero Cycles alleged Hero Ecotech violated the 2016 Supreme Court injunction by continuing subtle use of "HERO". They filed for contempt under CPC Order 39 Rule 2A, which can lead to fines or jail.
Q8. What three tests are needed for a temporary injunction?
Ans. Courts require: (1) a prima facie case, (2) a balance of convenience, and (3) irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. These tests come from well-known Supreme Court judgments like Dalpat Kumar vs Prahlad Singh (1992).
Q9. Why is this case important for Indian businesses?
Ans. It shows that family settlement agreements are legally binding and that courts will enforce trademark exclusivity strictly. It also highlights that even indirect/accidental brand use can lead to injunctions and contempt proceedings.
Q10. Is the main trademark case finally decided?
Ans. No, the original 2014 trademark infringement suit is still pending in the Patna District Court. Only the interim injunction and contempt procedural issues have reached the Supreme Court so far.

The dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited is one of the most important trademark battles arising out of a family business split in India. After the Munjal family divided their vast “Hero Group” empire in 2010, strict rules were created about who could use the valuable “HERO” brand name. When questions arose about whether those rules were being followed in the bicycle business, the matter reached multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. The case highlights how family settlement agreements and trademark rights interact under Indian law and how seriously courts treat brand protection.

Background of the Hero Brand and Family Division

A big Indian family, the Munjals, who built a massive business empire from scratch. They originally came from Pakistan before India's partition in 1947, settled in Amritsar, and then moved to Ludhiana (Punjab). They started small by making bicycle parts and grew into one of the world's biggest cycle makers, later expanding to motorcycles, auto parts, and more. The company was called the "Hero Group," famous for the "HERO" brand.

The founders were four brothers: Brijmohan Lall, Om Prakash, Satyanand, and Dayanand. As the family grew, their kids and grandkids got involved, and things got complicated. By 2010, the family decided to split the business to avoid fights. They were divided into four groups:

F-1 Group: Led by Vijay Munjal (son of Dayanand). They have businesses like electric vehicles, renewable energy, medical products, and exports/imports of bike parts and electric two-wheelers.
F-2 and F-3 Groups: Other branches, but they're not central to this fight.
F-4 Group: Led by Om Prakash Munjal and later by his son, Pankaj Munjal. They kept the core bicycle business.

The 2010 Family Settlement and Trademark Allocation

The split was done through a Family Settlement Agreement and a Trademark and Name Agreement (TMNA) in 2010. The Key rules about the "HERO" name, which is a registered trademark under India's Trademark Act, 1999 basically, a law that says only the owner can use a brand name to sell a product, to prevent customer confusion:

F-4 (Hero Cycles Limited) got exclusive rights to use "HERO", with its logo or monogram. For bicycles, tricycles, and auto parts. No one else in the family could use it for those products in India.
F-1 (Hero Ecotech Limited, originally part of Hero Exports) could use "HERO" for electric vehicles and for exporting bicycles to most countries (but not places like the USA, EU, or Japan). But they could not use "HERO" as a prefix, suffix, or alone. for making or selling bicycles in India. They could do a bicycle business, but only under a different name.

In 2011, there was a small "realignment" agreement to tweak some details, but it didn't change the big rules; there was no "HERO" for F-1's bicycles in India.

Everything was fine until F-1's company Hero Ecotech started making bicycles under the brand "KROSS." They printed their company name, "Hero Ecotech Ltd." on the packaging, and sometimes they used "HERO KROSS," which linked "HERO" to bikes. F-4 saw this as sneaky; customers might think these bikes were from the original "HERO" family, causing confusion and hurting their sales.

Legal Provisions Involved

The dispute invoked the Trademarks Act, 1999, alongside the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), given the family agreements and injunction enforcement. Key provisions include:

Section 9(2)(a) – Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Prohibits registration of marks likely to deceive or confuse the public. Hero Cycles argued Hero Ecotech's use misled consumers about product origins.
Section 11(1)(a) – Relative Grounds for Refusal: Bars registration if a mark is similar to an earlier one for similar goods, causing confusion. Hero Cycles claimed priority based on the 2010 agreements and historical goodwill.

Sections 27-29: Prohibit infringement by using a similar mark that confuses buyers. and passing off pretending your product is someone else's.

Section 34 – Prior Use Protection: Protects prior users from infringement claims if use predates registration.
Section 57 – Rectification and Cancellation: Allows aggrieved parties to seek removal of wrongly registered marks, though not directly applied here as the suit focused on infringement.
Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Temporary Injunctions: Empowers courts to grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm.
Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC – Consequences of Disobedience: Provides for contempt proceedings (e.g., attachment of property or imprisonment) if injunctions are violated.
Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC: Allows variation or vacation of injunctions upon application.

Family Settlement Agreement (2010): Treated as a binding contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 10: Agreements are enforceable if made with free consent and lawful purpose.

Key clauses:

Clause 1.1.7(d): F-1 cannot use "HERO" for bicycles in India.
Clause 2(viii): Any group can make bicycles, but without "HERO" or its logo.
Clause 5.6: Disputes go to arbitration in New Delhi under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (a law for private resolution, but it wasn't used here as the case went to court).

Constitution of India, Article 227: Gives high courts power to supervise lower courts and fix errors, used by Hero Ecotech to challenge trial court decisions.

Legal Metrology Act, 2009: Requires companies to print their name and address on products. which Hero Ecotech cited as why they used "Hero Ecotech Ltd." on packaging.

Alleged Infringement and Passing Off (2014)

In 2014, F-4 (Hero Cycles Limited and Om Prakash Munjal) sued F-1 (Hero Ecotech Limited and Vijay Munjal) in the Patna District Court (Title Suit No. 5031/2014).

Why Patna? Because Hero Ecotech was selling bikes there through a dealer (Kumar Cycle Stores), the court had jurisdiction to hear the case under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Hero Cycles asked for a permanent injunction to block Hero Ecotech from using "HERO" in any way for bicycles in India. They claimed it violated the 2010 agreement and the Trademark Act, Sections 27-29: You can't use someone else's mark if it confuses buyers.

The trial court ordered an interim injunction

On September 22, 2014, the trial court gave an ex-parte interim injunction. This meant Hero Ecotech had to immediately stop using "HERO" for bikes until the full case was decided.

Why temporary? Courts do this to prevent harm while the trial goes on; if you wait, the damage might be irreversible.

Hero Ecotech fought back by filing under CPC Order 39 Rule 4 to cancel or change the temporary order. They said: We're not using 'HERO' as a trademark, just our legal company name, 'KROSS', is totally different, no confusion. Also, the agreement allows us to make bikes, just not with HERO. And this should go to arbitration, not the court.

Trial Court Upholds the Injunction Order (2015)

On March 21, 2015, the Patna trial court rejected Hero Ecotech's request to cancel the injunction. The judge said Hero Cycles had a strong case using "HERO" in the company name on bike packaging could still confuse people, violating the exclusive rights. The injunction stayed.

Appeal to Patna High Court (2015)

Hero Ecotech appealed to the Patna High Court (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 121 of 2015). On July 7, 2015, Justice Shivaji Pandey ruled in their favour. He said:

Printing the company name "Hero Ecotech Ltd." isn't trademark use; it's just identification, and Hero Cycles even admitted this in other documents.
"KROSS" looks nothing like "HERO" (different logo, no deception).
Hero Cycles didn't prove irreparable harm, or that the balance favoured them; the injunction was hurting Hero Ecotech's business more.
The trial court messed up by not properly checking the three injunction tests.

The High Court cancelled the injunction.

Supreme Court Steps In, Injunction Back On (2016)

Hero Cycles appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 8478/2016). The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court's 2015 decision and restored the trial court's original injunction. They agreed with Hero Cycles: Even the company name on packaging could link "HERO" to bikes, causing confusion and breaching the family deal. Hero Ecotech was again blocked from any "HERO" association with bicycles.

Alleged Violations and Contempt Fight (2019)

After 2016, Hero Cycles claimed Hero Ecotech kept violating the injunction and still used "HERO" subtly on bikes or packaging. They filed a contempt application under CPC Order 39 Rule 2A in the Patna trial court.

On September 7, 2019, the trial court agreed and started separate contempt proceedings.

Hero Ecotech challenged this in the Patna High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution (lets high courts oversee lower courts to fix errors). The High Court set aside the 2019 order, saying the trial court didn't handle the contempt application properly, with no full hearing or evidence check.

In Supreme Court, Contempt Proceedings Restored (2026)

Hero Cycles appealed to the Supreme Court (Special Leave Petition turned into Civil Appeal No. 1478/2026). On February 10, 2026, Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled:

The Patna High Court was wrong to cancel everything without ensuring a proper inquiry. Under Order 39 Rule 2A, if someone claims a violation, the court must investigate fairly, hear both sides, and look at evidence. They set aside both the 2025 High Court and 2019 trial court orders, but restored the contempt application to the trial court for a fresh, proper decision.

What it means

As of February 2026, the injunction against Hero Ecotech using "HERO" for bikes is still in place (from the 2016 Supreme Court order). The contempt issue is being re-examined, and the full trial on trademark rights hasn't finished yet. Hero Cycles has mostly won the big battles, protecting their exclusive "HERO" for cycles. Hero Ecotech can sell under "KROSS," but can't touch "HERO."

Conclusion

The Hero Cycles vs. Hero Ecotech dispute clearly shows how powerful and strict Indian trademark law is in protecting brand identity. Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a registered owner gets strong exclusive rights, and even indirect or subtle use of a protected mark can lead to injunctions and contempt action. The courts consistently recognised that the “HERO” mark carries huge goodwill in the bicycle market and that any use likely to create confusion must be stopped. This case highlights that trademark rights are not just about logos but about protecting reputation, preventing customer confusion, and enforcing binding family or business agreements. It sends a clear message to Indian businesses that once trademark rights are legally divided or assigned, courts will strictly enforce exclusivity to safeguard brand value.

FAQs

Q1. What is the main dispute in this case?

Ans. It is a family fight over who can use the "HERO" brand name for bicycles in India after the Munjal family business split in 2010. Hero Cycles has exclusive rights for bicycles, while Hero Ecotech was barred from using "HERO" for regular bikes sold in India.

Q2. Which family branches are fighting?

Ans. Hero Cycles belongs to the Om Prakash Munjal branch (later led by Pankaj Munjal). Hero Ecotech belongs to the Dayanand Munjal branch (led by Vijay Munjal).

Q3. What key document created the problem?

Ans. The 2010 Family Settlement Agreement divided the Hero Group businesses among four family groups. It gave exclusive "HERO" bicycle rights to Hero Cycles and banned Hero Ecotech from using "HERO" for bicycles in India.

Q4. What is the most important court order still in force?

Ans. In 2016 the Supreme Court restored a temporary injunction banning Hero Ecotech from using "HERO" (even in company name) for bicycles in India. This injunction remains active as of February 2026.

Q5. Can Hero Ecotech sell bicycles at all?

Ans. Yes, they can and do sell bicycles under the separate brand name "KROSS". They are only prohibited from using "HERO" in connection with bicycles sold in India.

Q6. What law protects the "HERO" name?

Ans. The Trademark Act, 1999 (mainly Sections 27–29) protects registered trademarks from infringement and passing off. "HERO" is a registered trademark owned by Hero Cycles for bicycles.

Q7. What is the contempt issue about?

Ans. Hero Cycles alleged Hero Ecotech violated the 2016 Supreme Court injunction by continuing subtle use of "HERO". They filed for contempt under CPC Order 39 Rule 2A, which can lead to fines or jail.

Q8. What three tests are needed for a temporary injunction?

Ans. Courts require: (1) a prima facie case, (2) a balance of convenience, and (3) irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted. These tests come from well-known Supreme Court judgments like Dalpat Kumar vs Prahlad Singh (1992).

Q9. Why is this case important for Indian businesses?

Ans. It shows that family settlement agreements are legally binding and that courts will enforce trademark exclusivity strictly. It also highlights that even indirect/accidental brand use can lead to injunctions and contempt proceedings.

Q10. Is the main trademark case finally decided?

Ans. No, the original 2014 trademark infringement suit is still pending in the Patna District Court. Only the interim injunction and contempt procedural issues have reached the Supreme Court so far.