Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Nippon Paint From Using 'INFINITY' Trademark For Paints

The Delhi High Court has recently granted an interim injunction in favour of Glossy Paints India Pvt. Ltd., restraining Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited from using the impugned mark incorporating “INFINITY” and the infinity symbol “∞”, or any mark identical or deceptively similar, holding that the rival mark is prima facie deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the market.

In a common judgment delivered on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia also dismissed a rectification petition filed by Nippon Paint seeking cancellation of Glossy Paints' registered trademark, observing that the plea of invalidity was “an afterthought” raised only after mediation between the parties failed.

Glossy Paints moved the court to protect its proprietary rights over the trademark “INFINITY”, alleging that Nippon Paint had introduced a competing line of automotive and industrial coatings using a mark that features the word “INFINITY” along with the infinity symbol.

It told the court that the mark was adopted in 2001 and later registered in Class 2 for paints and allied products, adding that it had built goodwill through its continued use over the years.

Nippon Paint resisted the plea, claiming that the registration was invalid as it rested on a “false user claim” dating back to 2001 without supporting material. Pointing to its scale of operations, the company said it had a turnover of about Rs 2,400 crore and had recorded sales of Rs 20.2 crore under the impugned mark by late 2024.

The court was not persuaded. It held that Nippon Paint had placed nothing on record beyond “bald averments” to dislodge the statutory presumption of validity attached to a registered trademark.

It also noted that Nippon Paint, having itself applied to register the impugned mark, could not at the same time argue that the word “INFINITY” was descriptive or generic.

On comparing the competing marks, the court found that the impugned mark “completely subsumed” Glossy Paints' registered mark, with the word “INFINITY” and the infinity symbol forming its dominant features. The addition of the suffix “TIMELESS APPEAL”, the court held, did not distinguish the mark or negate deceptive similarity.

Given that both parties were using the marks for identical goods through the same trade channels, the court held that there was a strong likelihood of confusion among consumers.

“Considering that the competing Marks are being used for identical products, having identical trade channel and consumer base, in addition to the fact that the Impugned Mark is prima facie deceptively similar to the Subject Mark as held hereinabove, there exists a strong likelihood of confusion amongst the members of the trade and public, who may confuse the products of Defendant No. 1 bearing the Impugned Mark with the products of the Plaintiffs, believing that the products of Defendant No. 1 bearing the Impugned Mark originate from the Plaintiffs. ” the court observed.

The court also found that Nippon Paint's significantly higher sales since 2022, when it adopted the impugned mark, indicated that Glossy Paints had suffered actual loss due to the defendants' misrepresentation, thereby establishing a prima facie case of passing off.

Dismissing the rectification petition, the court held that no case was made out for removal of the “INFINITY” mark from the register.

Accordingly, during the pendency of the suit, the court restrained Nippon Paint and its representatives from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising any paints or allied products under the impugned mark or any mark identical or deceptively similar to Glossy Paints' “INFINITY” trademark.