Introduction
Is procedural fairness still absolute when infringement is blatant, deliberate, and ongoing? Can courts afford the luxury of notice when delay itself becomes the infringer’s greatest ally? As we navigate the legal landscape of 2026, Indian trademark jurisprudence increasingly answers these questions in the negative. There is an emerging judicial consensus that where triple identity and dishonest adoption are clearly established, the requirement of prior notice before granting interim relief must yield to the imperatives of justice, consumer protection, and the preservation of trademark goodwill. The Delhi High Court has led this doctrinal shift, situating ex-parte ad-interim injunctions not as procedural anomalies, but as necessary tools against calculated infringement. The recent decision in Delhi Public School Society v. Delhi Public School International Bhiwadi & Ors1. exemplifies this maturity, proving that the law can be both fair and fast.
The Statutory Foundation and the Role of Notice
The legal framework for this evolution rests upon Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, which defines infringement as the unauthorised use of an identical or deceptively similar mark likely to cause confusion. While remedies include injunctions and damages, the procedural gateway is governed by Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code. Traditionally, this requires notice to the opposite party to uphold the principles of natural justice and protect a defendant’s right to be heard.
However, the courts in 2026 recognise that this procedural shield can be weaponised. In fast-moving commercial contexts, particularly those involving digital platforms or educational institutions, the flexibility to grant injunctions without notice is vital. This is especially true where a defendant might use a notice period to continue infringing conduct, destroy evidence, or further dilute the plaintiff’s hard-earned goodwill.
The Convergence of the Triple Identity Doctrine
Central to the court’s willingness to dispense with notice is the Doctrine of Triple Identity. This concept refers to a situation where three elements are identical between the competing parties: the mark itself, the goods or services provided, and the class of consumers or trade channels involved. When these three pillars converge, the judiciary presumes confusion as a matter of course rather than a matter of evidence.
In the Delhi Public School Society case, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found a textbook application of this doctrine. The defendant school utilised the name “Delhi Public School International,” the acronym “DPS,” and the iconic torch and shield logo marks that have been synonymous with the plaintiff society for decades and were declared “well-known” in 2020. Because the services were identical (education) and the target audience (parents and students) was the same, the Court held that an average consumer would inevitably assume an official association. This approach mirrors other 2026 rulings, such as Dharamshila Belting Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Bansal2, where the use of an identical “TURBO” mark for conveyor belts led the court to conclude that confusion was not speculative but a mathematical certainty. Similarly, in Tapovan Foods v. Ganraj Enterprises3, the use of an identical mark for schezwan chutney through identical trade channels was held sufficient to streamline the analysis and justify immediate restraint.
Dishonest Adoption and the Erosion of Equities
If triple identity addresses what has been copied, dishonest adoption addresses the intent behind the theft. Indian courts have consistently held that equity does not favor a party that consciously rides on the reputation of another. In the DPS Bhiwadi matter, dishonest adoption was inferred from the fact that the defendant’s director had previously seen trademark applications for similar logos refused due to conflicts with the DPS Society’s existing rights. This prior knowledge transformed the infringement from a potential coincidence into a calculated bad-faith effort.
This reasoning is consistent with Tesla Inc. v. Tesla Power India Pvt. Ltd4., where the Delhi High Court found prima facie dishonest adoption of the “TESLA” brand. The defendant’s failed attempts at registration and inconsistent explanations for choosing the name were treated as indicators of bad faith. Dishonest adoption effectively strips a defendant of the equitable argument that notice should precede restraint, as one cannot claim a right to procedural delay to protect a foundation built on deception.
While natural justice remains fundamental, the 2026 judiciary has recognised that notice can operate as a shield for continued illegality. The transition of the ex-parte injunction from a rare exception to a commercial necessity is most evident in cases where delay causes irreversible damage. In Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Copycat Seller, the Court granted relief without notice because identical packaging on e-commerce platforms created an immediate risk to consumer trust.
The present decision fits squarely within this necessity-based jurisprudence. The Court noted that issuing notice would only embolden the infringer to continue deceiving the public or conceal their unlawful conduct. By directing the domain registrar to lock and suspend the infringing domain (dpsibhiwadi.in) immediately, the Court acknowledged that in the digital age, the preservation of public interest often requires the suspension of traditional notice.
Conclusion
Indian trademark jurisprudence has decisively clarified that when triple identity and dishonest adoption meet, the court’s obligation shifts from procedural neutrality to substantive protection. The decision in Delhi Public School Society v. DPS International Bhiwadi reinforces the principle that when infringement is obvious and deliberate, procedural formalities cannot be allowed to override the imperatives of justice. The implications for the future of trademark law are profound. Firstly, it establishes a high-velocity enforcement mechanism for “well-known” marks, ensuring that their reputation is not eroded by the slow machinery of traditional litigation. Secondly, it elevates the role of public interest; in sectors like education and healthcare, the court acts as a guardian against consumer deception. Ultimately, this approach ensures that the law remains responsive and firmly aligned with commercial integrity, signaling to bad-faith actors that the luxury of notice is no longer a guaranteed loophole for infringement.
Citations
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla, Vinay Ashra (Intern)
