The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Allcargo Logistics Limited, restraining a rival logistics firm from using the mark “VRS ALLCARGO” and other deceptively similar variants, holding that such use is likely to cause confusion and amounts to trademark infringement and passing off [All Cargo Logistics Vs VRS All Cargo].
Justice Tejas Karia, in an order dated December 1, found that the defendants’ adoption of “VRS ALLCARGO” prima facie infringed Allcargo’s long-standing and registered “ALLCARGO” trademarks and unfairly sought to ride on Allcargo's goodwill in the logistics and cargo sector.
"Material placed on record also shows that Defendant No. 1 has adopted and used the Impugned Marks in a manner that incorporates the Subject Mark ‘ALLCARGO’ in its entirety. The details of registration placed on record also demonstrate that the Plaintiff has secured statutory protection for the Subject Mark ‘ALLCARGO’ including the Word Mark ‘ALLCARGO’ across multiple classes. These registrations establish that Subject Mark ‘ALLCARGO’ is enjoyed by the Plaintiff also as a standalone registered Word Mark," the Court observed.
Finding that Allcargo had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, the Court restrained the defendants, their affiliates and agents from using the marks “VRS ALLCARGO” or any other trademark, trade name or expression deceptively similar to ALLCARGO in relation to logistics services.
The Court also directed the domain name registrant to suspend and block the websites www.vrsallcargopackers.com, www.vrsallcargopackers.in and www.vrsallcargo.in within 24 hours of receipt of the order.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 17, 2026.
Allcargo had approached the Court alleging that VRS All Cargo Packers and Movers Private Limited had begun offering logistics and relocation services under the marks “VRS ALLCARGO” and similar expressions, including through websites such as vrsallcargo.in and vrsallcargopackers.com.
According to Allcargo (plaintiff), these services were identical or overlapping with its own logistics offerings and were being marketed through the same trade channels, including online platforms and social media.
The plaintiff-company contended that it has been using the mark ALLCARGO since the early 1990s in relation to logistics and supply chain services, and holds an extensive portfolio of trademark registrations across multiple classes. It argued that decades of continuous use, significant revenues and sustained promotional efforts had conferred distinctiveness, reputation and goodwill on the ALLCARGO mark, making it exclusively associated with its services.
After noting that the defendants remained unrepresented despite service, the Court found that the impugned marks used by the defendants incorporate the word ALLCARGO in their entirety and are “visually, phonetically, structurally and deceptively similar” to Allcargo’s marks.
The Court observed that to a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the competing marks were likely to appear identical, leading to confusion as to the source or origin of the services. The risk of deception was further aggravated by the fact that the defendants were offering identical or overlapping logistics services through the same commercial channels.
Justice Karia also recorded that Allcargo was the prior adopter and continuous user of the ALLCARGO mark since the early 1990s, and that its long and extensive use had resulted in substantial goodwill and public recognition. The incorporation of ALLCARGO as the dominant element of the impugned marks, the Court held, was sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.
Allcargo Logistics Limited was represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, with Advocates Himanshu Deora, Rishika Aggarwal, Sanat Saswadkar, Ritik Raghuwanshi, Murthy and Pratibha Singh from King Stubb & Kasiva Advocates & Solicitors.
[Read Order]