WIPRO vs VEEPRO: Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in Trademark Dispute
A significant ruling on trademark infringement, well-known trademarks and Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
Case Details
| Case Title | Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor |
|---|---|
| Case Number | CS(COMM) 156/2025 |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Judge | Justice Vikas Mahajan |
| Decision Date | 27 October 2026 |
| Key Provision | Order VIII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 |
Introduction
In an important development in trademark enforcement, the Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against Veepro Lights and Decor.
The dispute concerned the use of the trademark VEEPRO, which the Plaintiff alleged was phonetically identical and visually deceptively similar to its registered and well-known trademark WIPRO.
Background of the Dispute
Wipro Enterprises claimed that it had been using the trademark WIPRO since at least 1977 through its predecessor-in-interest. The Plaintiff also relied upon its various trademark registrations and the recognition of WIPRO as a well-known trademark.
The Defendant, Veepro Lights and Decor, was engaged in the business of lighting and interior solution products and was allegedly using the mark VEEPRO on its products and website, www.veeproled.com.
WIPRO approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against trademark infringement and passing off.
Interim Injunction Granted by the Court
On 21 February 2025, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendant and persons acting on its behalf from using, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, importing or exporting goods and services under the trademark VEEPRO or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to WIPRO, in a manner amounting to infringement or passing off.
The Court clarified that the Defendant was free to continue its business under another trademark or trade name which was not identical or deceptively similar to WIPRO.
Defendant Proceeded Ex-Parte
The Defendant was served with summons on 28 March 2025 but failed to enter appearance before the Court.
Its right to file a Written Statement was closed by the Joint Registrar on 22 September 2025. Subsequently, on 6 October 2026, the Court proceeded against the Defendant ex-parte.
The Plaintiff filed an application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking pronouncement of judgment and decree.
Application of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
One of the important procedural aspects of this judgment is the application of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court considered that the Defendant had neither entered appearance nor filed a Written Statement despite service of summons. Consequently, the allegations made in the plaint remained uncontroverted.
The Court relied upon earlier decisions, including:
- Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v. Wow Chinese, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9162.
- Castrol Limited v. Vivek Sen, Trading as Tridev Auto Parts & Anr., CS(COMM) 32/2024.
- Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 781.
Following the principles laid down in these decisions, the Court observed that where the Defendant is ex-parte and sufficient material is available on record, it may not be necessary to prolong proceedings merely for recording formal ex-parte evidence.
Final Judgment and Directions
By judgment dated 27 October 2026, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited.
Final Order
- The suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff.
- Relief was granted in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint.
- Damages and costs of ₹4,00,000 were awarded against the Defendant.
- The Court directed preparation of the decree sheet.
The amount of ₹4 lakh comprised ₹2 lakh towards court fee paid by the Plaintiff and ₹2 lakh towards the fee paid to the Local Commissioner. The Plaintiff did not press for any additional damages.
Significance of the Judgment
The judgment highlights the importance of protecting registered and well-known trademarks against allegedly deceptively similar marks.
It also demonstrates the procedural consequences of failing to appear and file a Written Statement in commercial intellectual property litigation.
For trademark practitioners, the decision is particularly relevant to the application of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in trademark infringement proceedings.
Conclusion
The decision in Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor reinforces the importance of trademark enforcement and timely participation in civil proceedings.
It serves as a useful reference for intellectual property practitioners dealing with trademark infringement, passing off and procedural remedies under the CPC.