Introduction
Is there any greater threat to a brand’s hard-earned goodwill than the quiet, calculated adoption of its very identity by a rival operating in the exact same field? When a plaintiff walks into court with irrefutable evidence of such a complete usurpation, a virtual clone of their brand in the marketplace, does the law possess a mechanism swift enough to avert the immediate and irreparable damage? The answer, as demonstrated in the recent ruling of the Delhi High Court in Promodome Communication Private Limited vs. Promodome Digital LLP1, lies in the surgical precision of an ex parte injunction predicated on the clear satisfaction of the ‘Triple Identity Test‘.
The dispute centered on the Plaintiff’s well-established trademarks, primarily ‘PROMODOME’, ‘PROMODOME DIGITAL’, and ‘PROMODOME COMMUNICATIONS’, used for services in the advertising and communication sector. The Defendant, operating under the identical name ‘PROMODOME DIGITAL’ and the corresponding infringing domain name https://promodome.in, was also engaged in similar services. This striking concurrence presented the Court with a prima facie case of the highest degree of infringement, a scenario where the marks were identical, the services offered were identical, and consequently, the consumer base targeted was also identical. This finding of ‘triple identity’ left little doubt that the Defendant’s activities were designed to create confusion and pass off their services as those of the Plaintiff. Given the Plaintiff’s plea of an imminent likelihood that the Defendant might conceal or suppress its digital footprints, the Court acted decisively, granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from further use of the infringing mark and domain name.
Judicial Rationale: Section 29(2)(c) and the Triple Identity Test
The legal foundation for the Court’s decisive action is rooted in the Indian statute, specifically Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision governs the infringement of a registered trademark when a person uses a mark that is identical to the registered mark and is used in relation to identical goods or services. The genius of the statute, and the rationale behind the injunction, is found in the subsequent Section 29(3), which states that in any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2), the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
The judicial standard known as the ‘Triple Identity Test’ is therefore an interpretive and evidential tool used to establish the conditions of Section 29(2)(c). The test requires the concurrent satisfaction of three elements: identical marks, identical goods/services, and identical trade channels or consumer base. Once these three limbs are satisfied, the legal machinery activates the statutory presumption of confusion, making the grant of an injunction virtually inevitable.
This precise application of law has been consistently affirmed by Indian Courts. In the matter of Mankind Pharma Limited v. Biodiscovery Lifesciences Private Limited2, The Delhi High Court explicitly granted an interim injunction, observing that it was a clear case of “triple identity” where the marks, product category, trade channel, and consumer base were all identical. Similarly, the Courts in cases like Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. vs. Rajesh Agarwal3 and Sumeet Research and Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Sipra Appliances4 have upheld the application of this test to grant relief, emphasizing that such a degree of cloning is prima facie dishonest and an attempt to ride on the goodwill of the prior user. The inherent danger is not merely lost sales but the erosion of consumer trust, which is precisely what the law seeks to prevent.
The effectiveness of the law in a triple identity case is inextricably linked to the procedural concept of an ex parte ad-interim injunction, as granted in the Promodome case. While an injunction is generally granted after hearing all parties, Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) allows a Court to dispense with prior notice to the defendant if the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay.
In the digital age, where trademark infringement often involves domain names and rapidly deployable digital services, the potential for an infringer to wipe out their “digital footprints” or shift their entire operation overnight is a reality. A delay of even a few days can render a subsequent injunction ineffective. Therefore, in cases of triple identity—which presents the strongest prima facie case of infringement—the Court is justified in acting urgently. The combination of a statutory presumption of confusion (Section 29(3)) and the genuine apprehension of the Defendant’s evasive action creates a compelling ground for the Court to conclude that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the immediate, albeit temporary, restraint of the infringer. This ensures that the irreparable injury of dilution and deception is curtailed until the matter can be fully adjudicated.
Conclusion
The present ruling serves as a resounding affirmation of brand protection in the face of brazen identity theft. It underscores the power and efficiency of the Indian Trade Marks Act when faced with a perfect storm of infringement. By relying on the “Triple Identity Test” to satisfy the conclusive presumption of confusion under Section 29(3), the Court not only protected the Plaintiff’s statutory rights but also upheld the fundamental principle of trademark law: to prevent public deception. The swift grant of the ex parte injunction, a necessary shield in the age of rapid digital infringement, sends a clear message that the law stands ready to safeguard the integrity of commerce against the most egregious acts of passing off and infringement.
Citations
- Promodome Communication Private Limited vs. Promodome Digital LLP CS(COMM) 1015/2025 & I.A. 24022/2025
- Mankind Pharma Limited v. Biodiscovery Lifesciences Private Limited 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6303
- Drs Logistics (P) Ltd. vs. Rajesh Agarwal (2013) 199 DLT 527
- Sumeet Research and Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Sipra Appliances 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11341
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla
