Choosing a suitable trademark is not easy. Coining unique words, or creating marks derived from the business itself are some techniques. Sometimes, it is tempting to just scour the market and slightly tweak a name that is already popular in the same field. This treads on risky ground, as one Indian company learnt recently. This company adopted a business name similar to another registered trademark, and claimed trademark rights itself for identical services, catering to identical customers.

Background

 G4S Limited (the Plaintiff), which offers security services, owns trademarks in India (and worldwide) for, among others, “G4S”. The mark is derived from its trade name “Group 4 Securicor”, for which it enjoys considerable reputation and goodwill. Separately, the Defendant, in the same line of business, began using marks like “4GS”,  adopted trade names that were variations of “4 Group Safeguard & Security Services”, as well as the domain name <<https://www.4gs.co.in/>>.

When this came to light, including the fact that a trademark application for 4GS had been filed, a cease-and-desist notice was sent by the Plaintiff, represented by its attorneys Obhan Mason throughout the lifespan of the matter.

While denying any customer confusion outright, the Defendant’s responses to the notice ranged from arguing that its trade name was legitimate as it was approved by the concerned regulators, i.e., Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the Registrar of Companies (ROC), to suggesting that any dispute should be taken up with the regulators (MCA/ROC) and the domain registrar (GoDaddy) from whom the domain name was purchased. Its rebuttal also stated that its trade name was merely abbreviated to “4GS”, while also proffering a slightly changed logo/device mark.

Litigation

 The Plaintiff took this to court, in a suit before the Delhi High Court (CS(COMM) 276/2024) for trademark infringement and passing off. A Single Judge Bench, while leaving the issue of deceptive similarity for trial, granted an interim injunction and restrained the Defendant from using the mark “4GS”, as well as “4gs” in its domain name.

As the matter proceeded, it pivoted around the MCA/ROC approval of the Defendant’s corporate name, which the Plaintiff maintained was invalid, especially under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision deems the use of a registered trademark in a trade name as amounting to infringement. Jurisprudence also supports this principle, including Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 65, and Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/s Sahni Cosmetics v. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 3341).

Meanwhile, the Defendant stuck to its defence of MCA/ROC approval, and its abbreviated trade name. It also maintained visual and phonetic distinction between the marks, and contended that the Plaintiff had no monopoly over “4” or “G4”.

Another Single Judge Bench then held that the MCA/ROC approval was not a valid defence against trademark infringement or passing off, following the provision contained in Section 29(5). The bench also called out the “triple identity” here, where not only were the marks similar, but the services were also identical, as was the trade channels and consumer base. The interim injunction was thus made absolute.

The Defendant appealed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Here, it argued that its adoption of “4GS”, being an abbreviation, was not in bad faith, and that its decade-long business operations had afforded it substantial goodwill and reputation. The appeal failed, and the injunction was upheld, with the observation that the Defendant’s trade name was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks, particularly considering the “triple identity” test, where the likelihood of average consumer confusion is greater than usual.

The Defendant appealed further, this time through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India. Here, too, the appeal failed. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP by order dated 13 February 2026, keeping the injunction alive, and restraining the Defendant from using the contentious marks and trade names, among others, pending final adjudication of the suit.

As an aside, the Plaintiff highlighted to the Court that the Defendant’s pleadings were inconsistent and incorrect, with artificially generated or “made up” citations. While advising the Defendant’s counsel to use only official and authoritative sources, the Court clarified that the dismissal was on merits, and not due to deficiencies in pleadings.

Conclusion

 The major takeaway for businesses is that mere regulatory approval by MCA/ROC of a corporate name is no protection against claims of trademark infringement or passing off. Section 29(5) clearly anticipates this, and protects the rightful trademark owner in such situations. The protection gets amplified when the erring party not only adopts and uses the same (or deceptive similar) name or mark, but also deals with the same goods or services, and speaks to the same consumer segment. Such “triple identity” cases presume an increased likelihood of confusion, as has been frequently concluded by courts.

In summary, brand owners can rest assured that their enforcement rights are stable and cemented in India, especially when it comes to deceptively similar corporate names and marks being adopted as trademarks.