Eastman vs EASTHRON — Delhi HC Restrains Haridwar Battery Seller for Deceptive Similarity

Case Background

The Delhi High Court delivered a swift and decisive ruling in a trademark and trade dress infringement dispute in the battery industry. On 3 July 2026, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Hind Enterprises — a Haridwar-based battery seller — from using the trademark EASTHRON along with its associated packaging, finding both prima facie deceptively similar to the established EASTMAN trademark of Eastman Auto and Power Limited.

The Marks Compared — EASTMAN vs EASTHRON

Eastman Auto and Power Limited is an established battery manufacturer whose EASTMAN trademark is registered and well-known in the battery and power product category.

Hind Enterprises, a Haridwar-based battery seller, had adopted the EASTHRON mark for similar battery products. Eastman approached the court alleging that EASTHRON was substantially identical to EASTMAN and was being used with trade dress that closely copied Eastman's packaging.

Trade Dress Infringement

Beyond the word mark, a critical aspect of this case was the alleged copying of Eastman's trade dress — the overall visual appearance of its product packaging including colour scheme, label design and layout.

The court found that the defendant's packaging was "substantially identical" to the plaintiff's trade dress. This is a particularly important aspect of the ruling: even if a competing seller changes the product name, copying the packaging creates the same consumer confusion as copying the name itself.

Trade dress protection is especially significant in the battery and power products industry, where consumers often recognise brands by their distinctive packaging colours and label design rather than reading the product name carefully — particularly at the point of purchase in electrical shops and hardware stores.

Delhi High Court's Order

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that Eastman had made out a prima facie case in its favour and against the defendants. The court found that the balance of convenience favoured Eastman, noting that "irreparable harm and injury would result to the plaintiff if the interim relief sought is not granted."

The court accordingly restrained Hind Enterprises and the second defendant — a Guwahati-based entity responsible for printing and producing the infringing labels and packaging — from using the EASTHRON mark, trademark, wordmark or trade dress until the next date of hearing.

The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 24 September 2026.

Deceptive Similarity — The Legal Test

The test for deceptive similarity under Section 2(h) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 is whether the mark "so nearly resembles" another as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion among ordinary consumers. Key principles applied by courts:

• Ordinary consumer standardThe test is applied from the perspective of an ordinary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection — not an expert making a careful side-by-side comparison
• Overall impressionMarks are compared as a whole — their overall commercial impression — not feature by feature. The dominant part of the mark receives greater weight
• Visual, phonetic and conceptualSimilarity is assessed across three dimensions: visual appearance, phonetic sound when spoken aloud, and conceptual meaning or association
• Same class of goodsWhen marks are used on identical goods, the standard for finding similarity is lower — a lesser degree of similarity suffices to establish likelihood of confusion

Key Lessons

• Never copy a competitor's packagingTrade dress copying — imitating packaging colour, label design or overall visual identity — is actionable even if the product name is different. Courts treat packaging imitation as seriously as name infringement
• EAST- prefix is protectedMarks with the distinctive EAST- prefix in the battery category are registered and protected — new entrants should avoid confusingly similar prefixes
• Ex-parte orders come fastCourts can and do grant immediate injunctions without hearing the defendant — once an ex-parte order is passed, the infringer must cease immediately or face contempt
• Label printers are also liableThe Guwahati-based entity that printed Hind Enterprises' labels was also named as a defendant — those who assist in creating infringing materials can be restrained alongside the primary infringer
• Register your trade dressDistinctive packaging, colour schemes and label designs should be registered as trademarks in India under the Trade Marks Act 1999 — providing statutory protection in addition to common law trade dress rights

Why Choose Adv. Nikhil Soni & Co.?

• Personal handling by senior advocateAdv. Nikhil Soni personally handles every trademark infringement matter — clients deal directly with the advocate, not junior staff
• 23+ years, 5000+ trademarksExclusive IP practice since 2001 — trademark, patent, copyright, design and trade secret
• All India coverageAuthorised to appear before all five Trade Marks Offices and IP Courts across India
• End-to-end serviceSearch, filing, objection reply, enforcement and litigation — complete IP lifecycle management

Frequently Asked Questions