Bombay High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of Mark Deceptively Similar To 'TRACKON' For Courier Services

By an order dated January 22, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor allowed an interim application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit instituted by Trackon Couriers Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the “TRACKON” marks.

Holding that a prima facie case of infringement was made out, the Court observed that, “the Defendant has also not disputed the deceptive similarity between the impugned mark, i.e., “TRACK-ON”, and the dominant and essential feature of the Plaintiff's registered label marks, i.e., “TRACKON”. Equally, the Defendant has not disputed that the services offered by the Defendant are the same as the Plaintiff's services.”

Trackon Couriers informed the Court that it has been engaged in the business of domestic courier services, international shipping, e-commerce logistics and supply chain management and that it had coined and adopted the mark “TRACKON” in 2002.

It was submitted that the unauthorized use of the mark “TRACK-ON” by Srinivas was virtually identical to its registered mark and was likely to cause confusion in the market. Trackon further stated that while the rival entity had earlier functioned as a business associate, there was no license permitting continued use of the mark after termination of the association.

Opposing the plea, Srinivas relied on a letter dated May 5, 2016, to assert that the use of the mark was with the knowledge and consent of Trackon Couriers. It was argued that material documents had been suppressed, that there was acquiescence and that the adoption of the mark could not be characterised as dishonest.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court held that Trackon Couriers is the undisputed registered proprietor of the “TRACKON” marks and that none of the registrations had been challenged by the rival business.

The Court reiterated that where a word forms a prominent and essential part of a registered composite mark, unauthorized use of that word would amount to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court found that the mark “TRACK-ON” is virtually identical and deceptively similar to “TRACKON” and that the parties were offering identical services, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion.

“The Defendant has also made no attempt whatsoever to demonstrate that its adoption and use of the mark “TRACK-ON” is either honest or bona fide. On the contrary, the material placed on record leaves no manner of doubt that such adoption is dishonest and entirely lacking in bona fides,” the Court observed.

Holding that no legal justification had been established for the adoption of the impugned mark, the Court concluded that Trackon Couriers had made out a strong prima facie case for interim protection.

Accordingly, the Court restrained the use of the mark “TRACK-ON” or any other mark deceptively similar to “TRACKON” during the pendency of the suit.

For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond with Advocates Anand Mohan, Alhan Kayser, Varsha Vasave instructed by Avesh Kayser

For Defendant: Senior Advocate Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar with Advocate Ankit Tiwari instructed by Shashipal Shankar