The Delhi High Court has clarified that under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, adopting a registered trademark as a trade name amounts to infringement. Justice Tejas Karia, while hearing the matter, issued an interim injunction in favour of the global security company G4S, restraining 4GS—also engaged in security services and registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and Registrar of Companies—from using the disputed mark.
The company 4GS argued that its trade name had been duly approved by the MCA and that the term “4GS” was only a short form of its full name, 4Group Safeguard & Security Services Pvt. Ltd.. However, the Court held that such approval does not protect the entity from infringement claims.
Referring to Section 29(5), the Court emphasized that use of another’s registered trademark as a business name itself amounts to infringement. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr. (2002), where the defendants were restrained from using part of the plaintiff’s trade name because of the likelihood of confusion in the market.
The Court highlighted that this case presented a “triple identity” situation:
The marks used by both entities were nearly identical,
The services offered were in the same category, and
The customer base and trade channels were the same.
It further noted that confusion must be assessed from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect memory. Since the marks were strikingly similar, ordinary people could easily be misled into believing the two businesses were connected.
Accordingly, the Court barred 4GS from using the disputed mark and upheld G4S’s rights over its registered trademark.
