Supreme Court Restores Breach-Of-Injunction Proceedings In 'HERO' Trademark Dispute Between Hero Cycles and Hero Ecotech
Kirit Singhania
19 Feb 2026 2:03 PM IST
The Supreme Court recently revived proceedings for alleged breach of an injunction in the long-running “HERO” trademark dispute between Hero Cycles Limited and Hero Ecotech Limited.
A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a September 3, 2025 judgment of the Patna High Court, which had quashed a 2019 trial court order directing initiation of contempt proceedings against Hero Ecotech and others for alleged breach of an injunction.
The High Court had held that the trial court failed to follow the procedure required under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure and had prematurely recorded that “a contempt proceeding be initiated.”
The trial court, by its order dated September 7, 2019, had observed that “a contempt proceeding be initiated against the Defendants” and directed the parties to lead evidence. It had also ordered that a separate record be opened for the trial of the contempt proceeding.
Allowing the appeal filed by Hero Cycles, the Supreme Court held:
“In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court dated 03.09.2025 as well as the order of the trial court dated 07.09.2019 are set aside.”
The Court clarified that the trial court must adjudicate the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC in accordance with law.
“On hearing the learned senior counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material on record, we note that the trial court had to adjudicate the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC in accordance with law,” the bench observed.
It directed that “the application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC is restored on the file of the trial court.”
Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC provides for attachment of property or detention in civil prison in cases of disobedience of an injunction.
The dispute arises from a 2014 suit filed by Hero Cycles alleging violation of a family settlement governing use of the “HERO” trademark. An ad interim injunction restraining use of the registered mark “HERO” in relation to bicycles or bicycle parts was granted on September 22, 2014, and confirmed on March 21, 2015. The Supreme Court restored that injunction in 2016 after the High Court had interfered.
Hero Cycles later moved the trial court alleging disobedience of the injunction.
The Supreme Court observed that if an inquiry is sought, “both sides ought to be granted a reasonable opportunity” in such inquiry.
For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Manish Vashisht, with Advocates Avishkar Singhvi, Durga Das Bhatla, Ashutosh Nagar, AOR Pushpindu Singh Sodhi, Priyansha Sharma, Aman Sharma, Uditanshu Singh, Navtej Singh, Nidhi Jain, Subhang Shankar Gogoi, Vedansh Vashisht, Anshika, Saloni Bhatt
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Ramji Srinvivasan with Advocates NPS Chawla, Sujoy Datta, Pragya Mishra, Maulshree Pathak, AOR Surekh Kant Baxy, Kinjal Goyal, Jasjeet Singh, Aashi Yadav, Shefali Munde, Arjun Bhatia, Pragya, Sashi