Delhi High Court Permanently Bars Capital Airgun From Using 'KIEHBERG' Mark, Cancels Registration

The Delhi High Court on 13 October permanently restrained Capital Airgun Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark KIEHBERG, holding that trademark registration does not confer a right to pass off goods as those of a prior user.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit filed by Kiehberg GmbH and its Indian distributor, Syndicate Innovations International Ltd. He observed, “the registration gives the defendant no right to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiffs.”

The plaintiffs said they had sold air rifles, air pistols and shooting accessories under the KIEHBERG mark in India since 2012. Capital Airgun applied to register the identical mark in September 2023 on a “proposed to be used” basis and obtained registration in May 2024.

Although Capital Airgun had not yet launched its KIEHBERG-branded products, the plaintiffs approached the Court to prevent the apprehended infringement. Capital Airgun did not appear to contest the suit.

The Court held that the plaintiffs were clearly the prior users of the mark. It clarified that a mere trademark application would not, by itself, have been sufficient to sustain the suit, but the evidence went beyond the filing of an application.

Capital Airgun had obtained registration for the identical mark and was already selling air rifles and pistols through its website. The Bench noted that KIEHBERG was the German company's corporate name and that its adoption by another trader dealing in identical goods “cannot be a mere coincidence.”

It also considered the relationship between a director of Capital Airgun and a company involved in earlier litigation concerning KIEHBERG shipments, finding that this indicated awareness of the mark. It held that the plaintiffs' apprehension of infringement was real and imminent.

Accordingly, the High Court permanently restrained Capital Airgun, its directors, agents and associates from dealing in goods under KIEHBERG or any deceptively similar mark. It also directed them to surrender all material bearing the mark for destruction.

In a separate order passed on the same day, the Bench cancelled Capital Airgun's trademark registration. The plaintiffs did not press their claims for accounts of profits and Rs. 2 crore in damages.