Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Judgement delivered on: 26.09.2025
G4S LIMITED AND ANOTHER .....Plaintiffs
Advocates who appeared in these cases For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Essenese Obhan and Ms. Yogita Rathore, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Saral Sharma and Ms. Ekta, Advocates for D1, 3 & 4.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the Marks ‘4GS’, ‘ ’ and ‘ ’ (“Impugned Marks”) or any other Marks which are identical or deceptively similar to the registered Marks of the Plaintiffs ‘G4S’, ‘ ’ and ‘ ’ (“Plaintiffs’ Marks”) either as a Trade Mark or part of a Trade Mark, Trade Name or part of a Trade Name, Corporate Name, Electronic Mail, Domain Name or part of a Domain Name, or in any manner, which would amount to infringement or passing off of the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
2. Vide Order dated 03.04.2025, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted against the Defendants restraining them from using the Mark ‘ ’ and ‘4gs part’ of the Domain Name, ‘www.4gs.co.in’. (“Impugned Domain Name”), however, the use of the Mark ‘ ’ was not restrained and the question of the deceptive similarity of the Mark ‘ ’ was left open.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following submissions:
3.1. Plaintiff No. 1 and its group of companies, which includes Plaintiff No. 2, is a global, integrated security services company specializing in the delivery of security and related services to customers across the world. Plaintiff No. 1 and its group of companies are active in more than 90 countries and employ approximately 800,000 employees and subcontractors.
3.2. Plaintiff No. 1 has been carrying on the aforesaid business by itself and through various licensees for a number of years under the Plaintiffs’ Marks used in a standalone manner as well as in combination with numerous variants which have also been registered in favour of Plaintiff No. 1. The Plaintiffs have become well-known in respect of the delivery of security and related services worldwide including India. The Plaintiffs’ Marks have been continuously and extensively used in India since 2005 and stand registered in India. Trademark Registration No. Class Registration Date Date of use Status 1367702 99 June 29, June 29, Registered 1435723 99 March 30, March 30, 2754523 45 June 12, January 01, G4S 4738401 45 November 09, 2020 June 30,
3.3. The Plaintiffs have, under the Plaintiffs’ Marks, made extensive sales running into crores of rupees over the past several years. A table showing the aggregate sales figures of the services offered by Plaintiff No. 2, in India, in the last decade under the Plaintiffs’ Marks is reproduced hereunder: Financial Year External Turnover (INR) 2004-2005 339,34,18,992/- 2005-2006 430,57,16,874/- 2006-2007 557,35,84,546/- 2007-2008 719,07,46,483/- 2008-2009 867,46,59,528/- 2009-2010 981,33,53,354/- 2010-2011 1227,27,66,246/- 2011-2012 1423,63,25,802/- 2012-2013 1599,07,46,231/- 2013-2014 1860,23,03,464/- 2014-2015 2063,71,11,337/- 2015-2016 2282,14,85,006/- 2016-2017 2472,09,20,120/- 2017-2018 2508,82,00,000/- 2018-2019 2591,08,00,000/- 2019-2020 2790,14,85,269.18/- 2020-2021 2458,44,09,329.02/- 2021-2022 2543,03,75,318.71/- 2022-2023 2907,27,73,558/-
3.4. The Plaintiffs have also spent large sums of money in order to advertise their brand and increase their public expense The total expenditure made on advertising by Plaintiff No.2 through various media, like print, electronic, digital, outdoor media, etc. from the financial year 2018-2019 onwards is reproduced hereunder: Financial Year Approx. Expenditure 2018-2019 20 million 2019-2020 22.[7] million 2020-2021 8.[5] million 2021-2022 13.41 million 2022-2023 14.[9] million
3.5. Defendant No. 1, 4Group Safeguard & Security Services Private Limited, is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and carries on business, inter alia, of security services under the Impugned Marks, while Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are Directors of Defendant No. 1 and are involved in its daily management. Defendant No. 2, 4GS Security Services (India) Private Limited is a company associated with Defendant No. 1, as reflected from the ‘CONTACT US’ page of the Impugned Domain Name and jointly carries out the business of security and other allied services with Defendant No. 1.
3.6. In December 2023, the Plaintiffs came across the Trade Mark application filed by Defendant No. 1 for the registration of the Mark, ‘ ’ bearing Application No. 5870201 filed on a “proposed to be used” basis in Class 45 for security services, which was dishonestly adopted and which contains the abbreviation “4GS” as the dominant part of the Trade Mark which is structurally, phonetically and visually similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks. The Defendants were also using the Impugned Marks on the Impugned Domain Name.
3.7. The Plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 20.12.2023 (“Cease and Desist Notice”), asking the Defendants to immediately cease and desist from using the Impugned Marks or any deceptively similar Trade Mark or Trade Name. The Defendants sent a reply dated 21.12.2023 to the Legal Notice denying infringement of the Plaintiffs’ Marks, claiming valid adoption of the Impugned Marks and the Defendants’ Registered Names, ‘4Group Safeguard & Security Services Private Limited’ and ‘4GS Security Services (India) Private Limited’ (“Impugned Trade Names”), by stating that the Impugned Domain Name was purchased from GoDaddy whereas the Impugned Trade Names have been approved by ROC and MCA, so any issue should be taken up with GoDaddy / ROC and MCA. The Defendants further claimed that the rival Marks are distinct.
3.8. The Defendants vide a second reply dated 03.01.2024 to the Legal Notice stated that “4GS” is an abbreviation of their company name, and that they have changed their logo mark from to.
3.9. The Defendants, despite being put to notice of their infringing activities on multiple occasions, continued to use the Impugned Marks and Impugned Trade Names, and hence the Plaintiffs have instituted the captioned suit against the Defendants. A comparison of the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the Impugned Marks would display that the Impugned Marks are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks. A comparative table of the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the Impugned Marks is reproduced hereunder: Plaintiffs’ Marks Impugned Marks G4S 4GS
3.10. The only submission made by the Defendants is that the Mark ‘ ’ was adopted in view of the corporate name of Defendant No. 1 as registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”) which states that a registered Trade Mark is infringed even when the infringer uses the same in its Trade Name or a part of its Trade Name. Thus, registration with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, as being claimed by the Defendants, is not a valid defence to Trade Mark infringement and / or passing off. In Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 65, the Supreme Court restrained the defendants from using a part of the Trade Name of the plaintiff on account of probability of confusion in the market. The said position has been further reiterated by this Court in the judgment of Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/s. Sahni Cosmetics v. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3341.
3.11. The Defendants are continuing their infringing activities under the Impugned Marks, Impugned Trade Names and the Impugned Domain Name, which is likely to cause irreparable harm, loss and injury to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have been able to satisfy the requirements of grant of interim injunction qua the Marks, ‘4GS’ and ‘ ’ as well as the Impugned Trade Names, and confirmation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted against the Defendants vide Order dated 03.04.2024.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE DEFENDANTS:
4. The learned Counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 made the following submissions:
4.1. The Impugned Marks are being used pursuant to the approval of the Impugned Trade Names by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Registrar of Companies. The Mark ‘4GS’ is the abbreviation of the Trade Name, 4Group Safeguard & Security Services Private Limited, registered by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, and Defendant No. 1 is using the abbreviation of its Trade Name as a Trade Mark.
4.2. Vide Order dated 03.04.2025, this Court although granted an exparte ad-interim injunction restraining the use of the Mark ‘ ’ and the ‘4gs part’ of the Impugned Domain Name, the use of the Mark ‘ ’ was not restrained and the deceptive similarity of the Mark ‘ ’ was left to be decided on the next date of hearing.
4.3. The Mark ‘ ’ is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks and does not cause infringement or passing off of the Plaintiffs’ Marks. The Impugned Marks are different from the Plaintiffs’ Marks, both visually and phonetically, and there is no possibility of confusion among public. The Plaintiffs cannot claim monopoly over the numeral ‘4’ or the expression ‘G4’ and the Mark ‘ ’ viewed as a whole is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
5. A Trade Mark indicates the source of the goods or services, in respect of which it is used. A Trade Mark is an indicator of origin, distinguishing the goods and services of a party from those of its competitors. Thus, a Trade Mark is said to possess a distinctive character, when it serves to identify and distinguish the goods or services of a party from those of others. In the present case, the Plaintiffs’ Marks serves as a source indicator for the services provided by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ Marks have attained a distinctive character and have become identifiers and distinguish the services of the Plaintiffs from those of other parties, including, from those of the Defendants. By extensive, continuous, and prolonged usage, the public at large commonly associates the Marks ‘G4S’, ‘ ’ and ‘ ’, with the Plaintiffs. The Impugned Marks are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks.
6. The Defendants’ submission is that the Impugned Marks are being used pursuant to the approval of their Trade Names by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and the Registrar of Companies. It was further contend that the Mark ‘4GS’ is merely an abbreviation of the Trade Name ‘4Group Safeguard & Security Services Private Limited’, and that Defendant No. 1 is therefore using the abbreviation of its Trade Name as a Trade Mark. This submission does not constitute a valid defence against infringement or passing off. Under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, the use of a registered Trade Mark as a Trade Name itself amounts to infringement of the registered Trade Mark. The present position has been affirmed in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Laxmikant V. Patel (supra) and by this Court in Inder Raj (supra).
7. Further the test of confusion is to be seen from the perspective of an average person with imperfect recollection getting confused and in view of the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the Impugned Marks being almost similar, any ordinary person would get confused and would not be able to distinguish between the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the Impugned Marks.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and the documents on record, a strong prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiffs for grant of interim injunction.
9. The Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the Plaintiffs’ Marks with the earliest registration for the Mark ‘ ’ in India was in the year
2005. The Plaintiffs have been using the Mark ‘ ’ in India continuously since the year 2005 with respect to delivery of security and related services. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated the goodwill and reputation acquired by the Plaintiffs’ Marks. The Plaintiffs have spent a considerable amount on advertising and business promotion and recorded an expenditure of ₹1,49,00,000/- for advertising and business promotion in the Financial Year (“FY”) 2022-23 and earned a revenue of ₹2907,27,73,558/for FY 2022-23. The Defendant’s use of the Impugned Marks is dishonest and nothing but an attempt to ride the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs’ Marks so as to cause confusion in the market.
10. The Plaintiffs have established its prior user as well as goodwill and reputation, on the basis of the documents on record. Injunction is a relief in equity, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, the same is in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. Further, the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants and grave prejudice is likely to be caused to the Plaintiffs if interim injunction as prayed for is not granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.
11. This is a case of triple identity where the Marks are identical, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical. The Plaintiffs being the prior user, adopter of the Mark ‘G4S’ are entitled to protection. The identity in the Impugned Marks is so close to the Plaintiffs’ Marks that they are indistinguishable.
12. In view of the above, injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants vide Order dated 03.04.2025 is confirmed and made absolute and shall continue during the pendency and till final disposal of the present Suit.
13. Further, the Defendants, their directors, proprietors, partners, associates, assigns or assignee in interest, heirs, successors or successors in interest, permitted assigns, sister concerns or group companies, distributors, dealers, wholesalers, retailers, stockists, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from using, soliciting, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting and advertising in any manner including on the internet and e-commerce platform, directly or indirectly dealing in security and related services under the Marks, ‘4GS’ and ‘ ’ and using the Impugned Trade Names, ‘4Group Safeguard & Security Services Private Limited’ and ‘4GS Security Services (India) Private Limited’ or any other Trade Mark or Trade Names which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks, ‘G4S’, ‘ ’ and ‘ ’ thereby amounting to infringement or passing off of the Plaintiffs’ Marks during the pendency and till final disposal of the present Suit.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the present Application is allowed and is accordingly, disposed of. I.A. 39427 of 2024 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 2A)
15. The present Application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC read with Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for initiating contempt of court proceedings for non-compliance of the Order dated 03.04.2025.
16. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that in view of the fact that since the filing of the present Application, the Defendants have taken down the Impugned Domain Name, as well as, their Facebook page. Thus, the present Application is remaining only qua some Instagram posts on the Defendants’ Instagram account. The Defendants have undertaken to take down the aforesaid Instagram posts.
17. In view of the undertaking given by the Defendants, the Defendants are directed take down the Instagram posts featuring the Impugned Marks and file an Affidavit of Compliance within a period of two weeks.
18. The present Application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
CS COMM 276/ 2024
19. List for further proceedings on 10.12.2025.
TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025