Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Medical Device Firms From Using 'MOTHERSON' Trademark

The Delhi High Court has granted temporary relief to auto components manufacturer Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited and another entity described as its sister concern from using the "MOTHERSON" mark and device mark pending further proceedings in a trademark infringement suit.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on May 29, 2026, after holding that Motherson had made out a prima facie case for protection of its trademark rights.

Observing that the word "MOTHERSON" was the dominant feature of the defendants' marks, the Court held:

"To the public at large what would strike at the first instance would be the word 'MOTHERSON' other than any other elements which are available in the said mark of the defendant."

The order was passed on an ex parte ad interim application filed by Motherson seeking restraint against the defendants' use of the mark.

Motherson informed the Court that it was established in 1975 and holds multiple registrations for the "MOTHERSON" word mark and device marks across various classes. It claimed user of the mark since December 2, 1975, and placed on record details of its registrations, business operations, promotional activities and revenues.

According to the plaint, the defendants manufacture and trade in medical devices and had adopted "MOTHERSON" as part of their corporate name and trademark. Motherson alleged that the defendants operated social media accounts incorporating the mark and had also applied for registration of marks containing "MOTHERSON" on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

After comparing the rival marks, the Court held that the dominant and prominent feature of the defendants' marks was the word "MOTHERSON". The Court also observed that there was nothing on record explaining how or why the defendants had adopted the word "MOTHERSON" as a trademark.

Holding that Motherson was entitled to protection as the prior adopter, prior user and prior registrant of the mark, the Court observed:

"Consequently, it will be safe to infer that the plaintiff is not only the prior adopter and prior user but also the prior registrant of the mark 'MOTHERSON' and its variants."

On the likelihood of confusion, the Court held, "Additionally, since the registered trademark of the plaintiff is not only on the device but also the word mark, the provisions of Section 29(3) will come to its aid and the Court shall presume that the usage of the mark 'MOTHERSON' by the defendant is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public."

Finding that the requirements for interim protection were satisfied, the Court held:

"In view of the above, it is evident that the plaintiff has been able to prima facie establish a strong case in its favour as against the defendant. The balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case the ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted."

Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants, their directors, wholesalers, distributors, and others acting on their behalf from using, manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing, offering for sale or distributing products bearing the "MOTHERSON" trademark or device mark, including on websites and advertising material, in a manner that may amount to infringement of the plaintiff's trademark.

The matter is scheduled to be heard next on October 29, 2026.