Delhi High Court Restrains Named, Unknown Parties From Using SKF Trademark For Bearings, Freezes Bank Accounts

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained five known entities and several unknown entities from using Swedish bearing manufacturer AB SKF's registered “SKF” trademark after finding a prima facie case that they were allegedly dealing in counterfeit bearings, while also directing Kotak Mahindra Bank to freeze three bank accounts linked to some of them.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the entities appeared to be making “unlawful financial gains” at AB SKF's expense.

“It appears that the defendants are making unlawful financial gains at the expense of the plaintiff and are unjustly enriching themselves. That apart, the low quality counterfeit products are sure to not only dilute the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs trademark but also tarnish the same,” the bench observed.

AB SKF said it discovered in March 2026 through online and physical verifications that five entities were allegedly operating as a closely-knit network dealing in counterfeit SKF bearings without authorisation.

The court noted that the entities appeared to share the same geographical territory, operated bank accounts in the same bank, and had the same modus operandi.

A key plank of AB SKF's case was its link to an earlier trademark infringement suit that was decreed in February 2026 following a settlement.

AB SKF alleged that the entities in the present suit were connected to parties in that earlier case, with some individuals resurfacing through new business entities. Notably, Samkit Shah, proprietor of SNKB Bearings, was also linked to entities in the earlier suit, while his wife Shweta Shah was found to be proprietor of Goyma Impex, which was a defendant in the decreed proceedings.

On examining the products side by side, the court found the imitation to be near-total.

"It appears that except the Batch numbers of the plaintiffs products, the other elements have been copied and imitated to such an extent that it is near impossible to distinguish or differentiate the distinction between the genuine products of the plaintiff and the infringing or counterfeit products of the defendants," the court observed.

It further noted that the entities had copied the trademark, trade dress, packaging, and certification material used by SKF to certify genuine products.

The court also flagged the practice of issuing bogus Certificates of Authorisation and Inspection Certificates to deceive customers and noted that the entities had allegedly been shifting premises to evade detection, indicating malafide intent.

Finding a prima facie case in AB SKF's favour, the Court restrained the five entities and other unknown entities from using the “SKF” mark, its trade dress, or any deceptively similar mark in the course of trade, including on domain names, email IDs and social media handles.

The matter is next listed before the Court on November 16, 2026.