Published 15 October 2026
In the second half of September 2026 the Delhi High Court's commercial division passed three interim orders that answer questions small brand owners ask us every week: can a rival use my brand name to appear on Google, does a one-letter change avoid infringement, and how fast can fake listings on Amazon or Flipkart be removed? All three are interim, granted before the defendants were heard, and each turns on its own evidence. Read together, they show what the court is willing to do and what a brand owner has to bring to get it.
Herbalife v. "Herbawish": marketplace listings down in 36 hours
In Herbalife International, Inc v. Ashish Kumar & Ors, CS(COMM) 997/2026, decided on 15 September 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh found a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against sellers using "Herbawish" and "Herbawish Nutrition" with a three-leaf logo and similar packaging. The defendants were restrained from using the marks, the logos, the trade dress and the herbawish domain name. Amazon was directed to take down five listings, Flipkart nine and IndiaMART four, eighteen in all, within 36 hours of receiving the order, and the three platforms were told to disclose the sellers' names, addresses, phone numbers, email, billing and payment details and KYC documents within six weeks in a sealed cover.
The 36 hours is that order's direction, not a general rule. What travels is the structure: a registered mark, a schedule of the exact URLs, and the platforms joined as parties so that takedown and disclosure orders bind them.
Agarwal Packers & Movers: keywords, meta tags and 202 fake Google listings
In Agarwal Packers And Movers Ltd v. Agarwal Packers Andmovers Delhi & Ors, CS(COMM) 1021/2026, decided on 22 September 2026, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav dealt with impostor movers trading on a mark that a 2013 court decision had recognised as well known. The order records that about 202 fake Google Business Profile listings had been identified as on 27 January 2026; Google removed many but declined to act on 72 of them without a court order. The court restrained the seventy impostor defendants from using the mark "as a trademark, trade name, corporate name, part thereof, keyword, meta tag or in any other manner", and directed Google to remove or disable the listings the plaintiffs had identified.
Two limits matter. The court declined, at this stage, to give a final direction on Google Maps listings, and it declined a dynamic injunction covering future listings; instead the plaintiffs are to send particulars of new listings to Google, which must respond after taking instructions. The matter returns on 29 January 2027.
Volvo v. "MAX VOLWO": a changed letter is still infringement
In Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v. M/s Pooja Lubricant, CS(COMM) 940/2026, decided on 24 September 2026, Justice Kaurav restrained the use of "MAX VOLVO", "MAX VOLWO" and "VOLWO GOLD" on engine and gear oils. Because the marks were not identical in the strict sense but the goods were identical to the Class 4 goods of Volvo's registrations, the court placed the case under section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act and found it unnecessary at this stage to rely on the presumption of confusion in section 29(3). It granted the injunction without notice, recording that the defendant dealt in cash, held substantial stock at an office-cum-warehouse, had moved from its GST-registered address and was ready to ship interstate, so that notice would defeat the order. All listings, including on IndiaMART, were to come down within a week of service.
What these orders mean for a small brand in Kerala
- Register the mark. Herbalife and Volvo sued on registrations under section 29; a registration turns a passing-off argument about reputation into an infringement claim about the register.
- Collect the URLs before you file. The orders are built on schedules of specific listings; screenshots with dates, test purchases and invoices make the schedule credible.
- Watch Google Business Profile, not just marketplaces. Fake service listings divert enquiries to impostors, and the Agarwal order shows Google may wait for a court order.
- Look-alike spellings are not a defence. A one-letter change on identical goods sits squarely within section 29(2)(b).
- Ex parte relief needs a reason. The court dispensed with notice in Volvo because of specific facts about cash dealings, stock and a changed address; gather that evidence early.
- Recognition builds on itself. Agarwal relied on a 2013 judgment; well-known status found in one case makes later enforcement faster.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a competitor use my trademark as a Google Ads keyword or meta tag?
In the Agarwal Packers & Movers order of 22 September 2026 the Delhi High Court restrained impostor defendants from using the mark as a keyword or meta tag. It is an interim order on its facts, so each case still depends on the mark, the use and the evidence.
How quickly can fake marketplace listings be removed by court order?
In Herbalife v. Ashish Kumar the court directed Amazon, Flipkart and IndiaMART to remove eighteen listings within 36 hours of receiving the order. That timeline was specific to that order.
Does changing one letter of a famous brand avoid infringement?
No. In Volvo v. Pooja Lubricant the court treated "MAX VOLWO" on lubricants as infringing under section 29(2)(b), as the marks were similar and the goods identical.
Can marketplaces be made to reveal who the seller is?
Yes. The Herbalife order directed the platforms to disclose the sellers' names, addresses, contact, payment and KYC details within six weeks in a sealed cover.
Are these final judgments?
No. All three are interim injunctions granted before the defendants appeared; the defendants can apply to vary them, and the suits continue to trial.
Sources
Delhi High Court: Herbalife International, Inc v. Ashish Kumar & Ors, CS(COMM) 997/2026, order of 15 September 2026; Agarwal Packers And Movers Ltd & Anr v. Agarwal Packers Andmovers Delhi & Ors, CS(COMM) 1021/2026, order of 22 September 2026; Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v. M/s Pooja Lubricant, CS(COMM) 940/2026, order of 24 September 2026 (texts on Indian Kanoon); Trade Marks Act, 1999, section 29.
BookMyTM registers trademarks, runs watch services for look-alike filings and listings, and prepares the evidence and notices brand owners in Kerala need before going to court.