The Delhi High Court has ruled that a company cannot demand cancellation of an interim injunction merely because it affects its business operations or Initial Public Offering (IPO) plans. The court emphasized that the primary concern in such cases is trademark protection and public confusion, not commercial loss due to court orders.
A division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar delivered the ruling while hearing an appeal by Newgen IT Technologies Limited. The company challenged a lower court’s injunction order that restrained it from using the mark “NEWGEN”, which was already registered and used by Newgen Software Technologies Limited, the Respondent.
"The Appellant cannot be permitted to continue deriving commercial benefit from a mark that, in our considered view, is similar to that of the Respondent and clearly warrants restraint through injunctive relief,"
— Delhi High Court Bench
Background of the Case
The Appellant, Newgen IT Technologies, had earlier entered into a partnership with the Respondent. After the termination of the agreement, the Appellant started using the name "Newgen IT Technologies" — a name identical to the Respondent’s long-standing trademark "NEWGEN", which had been in use since 1992.
Read also:- No Leniency for POCSO Offenders: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence in Gang-Rape of Minor
This led the Respondent to approach the District Court, which granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction citing that the adopted name was capable of misleading the public due to its striking similarity.
Challenging this in the High Court, the Appellant argued that it had been using the mark "NEWGEN IT" in India and abroad since 2017, and that the Respondent never objected to it during that time.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments and upheld the District Court’s findings.
“Coupled with this is their association as partners under the Partnership Agreement. This similarity is capable of causing confusion in the minds of an average consumer,”
— Delhi High Court
Read Also:- J&K High Court: Retirement Benefits Cannot Be Withheld for Pending Crime Branch Clearance
The Court noted that both companies operate in the same business field and the Appellant started using the disputed mark right after the termination of the agreement. This raised questions about the intention and bonafide nature of the adoption.
The Court clarified that the mere fact that the Respondent didn’t object earlier doesn’t imply consent. Moreover, trademark law is territorial, and usage in one country does not automatically grant protection or recognition in another.
“Trademark protection is territorial in nature... The Appellant has failed to meet this test,”
— Delhi High Court
The Court further stated that public interest and brand integrity must be prioritized over commercial consequences like business loss or IPO delay.
Case Title:Newgen IT Technologies Limited v. Newgen Software Technologies Limited
Case Number:FAO (COMM) 73/2025
