Delhi High Court Restrains 'SUPERON' Trademark Use, Orders Takedown Of Infringing Websites
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the registered “SUPERON” trademark, restraining a Gurugram-based entity from using the mark or any deceptively similar name of the stainless steel consumables brand.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on February 4, 2026, directing the entity's proprietor to immediately cease using the "SUPERON" name in any capacity, whether as a trade name, domain name, or email address.
The court also ordered the suspension and deletion of infringing websites such as superonpower.com and superonpower.in, as well as business listings on Instagram, Facebook, Justdial, and Indiamart.
Sanjay Mehra, Director of companies including Superon Schweisstechnik Industries and Stanvac Chemical India, alleged that the rival entity was dishonestly running two websites that infringed upon his 'SUPERON' trademark, a brand he coined and adopted in 1994 for welding electrodes and related products.
Even the name of the entity run by the defendant was titled “Superon Power Solutions,” Mehra submitted.
Mehra further claimed that his brand's annual sales figures climbed from approximately ₹75 crore in 2010 to ₹498.94 crore in the 2024-25 fiscal year.
The dispute arose when Mehra discovered the defendant operating "Superon Power Solutions" out of Gurugram, the same city where Mehra's own manufacturing units are located.
The court noted that the defendant's adoption of the mark appeared to be a dishonest attempt to ride upon the Mehra's mark's goodwill.
In granting the injunction, the Court emphasised that an "unwary consumer of average intelligence" would likely be misled into believing the defendant's services were affiliated with Mehra's established business.
Justice Gedela observed that “prima facie, it appears that the defendant is infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiff and in case an ex-parte injunction as sought is not granted and the defendant is not restrained from continuing with the infringing activities, irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiff, which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms.”
Accordingly, the court ordered, “Let the reply to this application be filed by the defendant within 4 weeks from service and rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within 2 weeks thereafter.”
For Sanjay Mehra: Advocates Manish Biala and Devesh Ratan