Can a company use someone else’s registered trademark (or a deceptively similar mark) as part of its own business name, and then use that as a backdoor to claim trademark rights with respect to identical goods or services, catering to the same set of customers? This question recently went up all the way to the Supreme Court, in a case involving a globally-known brand with worldwide presence, and an Indian company operating domestically.
The plaintiff, G4S Limited, an integrated security services company with worldwide operations, owns trademarks, including in India, for its key brand identity, including “G4S” and a logo. The mark G4S is derived from the plaintiff’s trade name “Group 4 Securicor”, and the plaintiff enjoys reputation and goodwill in the mark ‘Group 4’.
Separately, the defendant, in the same line of security services, began using marks such as “4GS” and related logos. It also adopted corporate names such as “4 Group Safeguard & Security Services Private Limited” and “4GS Security Services (India) Private Limited”, and the domain name <<https://www.4gs.co.in/>>.
After the plaintiff learnt of the defendant's marks, trade name and domain name, and the fact that a competing trademark application for security services had been filed, the plaintiff, through its attorneys Obhan Mason (who represented them throughout the matter), issued a cease-and-desist notice. The notice drew particular attention to the use of the plaintiff’s marks for identical services, and the likelihood of confusion and deception amongst consumers.
In its reply, the defendant denied infringement, claiming its adoption was legitimate. The defendant asserted that the domain name was purchased from a domain registrar (GoDaddy), and that its trade names were approved by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) and the Registrar of Companies (ROC). On this basis, the defendant suggested that any dispute should be taken up with GoDaddy or MCA/ROC directly, and not the Defendant. The defendant also claimed that the two sets of marks were distinct, and that there was no possibility of confusion. In a subsequent reply, the defendant also said that “4GS” was merely an abbreviation of its corporate name and that the logo/device mark had been changed (as shown below), while continuing to deny that its branding amounted to infringement or passing off.
The plaintiff then filed a suit before the Delhi High Court (CS(COMM) 276/2024) for trademark infringement and passing off. A single judge Bench, in its order dated April 3, 2024, granted an interim injunction and restrained the defendant from using the mark “4GS”, as well as the “4gs” portion of the domain name. However, the Court did not fully restrain the defendant’s new logo at that stage, and the issue of deceptive similarity in respect of that mark was left to be decided later.
Key to the plaintiff’s case was challenging the argument that the defendant’s corporate name had been approved by MCA/ROC. The plaintiff said that such approval was not a valid defence in a trademark infringement action, especially in view of Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which expressly recognises that use of a registered trademark as part of a trade name amounts to infringement. The plaintiff relied upon Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr. (2002) 3 SCC 65, where the Supreme Court had restrained the use of a trade name likely to cause confusion, and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/s Sahni Cosmetics v. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 3341), reiterating similar principles.
On the other hand, the defendant argued that its marks were being used after its corporate name was approved by the MCA and ROC. It said that “4GS” was simply an abbreviation derived from its corporate name. The defendant also asserted that its marks were visually and phonetically distinct from the plaintiff’s marks, and that the plaintiff could not claim a monopoly over “4” or “G4”.
In an order dated September 26, 2025, another single judge Bench held that the MCA/ROC approval was not a valid defence against trademark infringement or passing off, reaffirming that, under Section 29(5), the use of a registered trademark as a trade name itself amounts to infringement.
An important observation was that this was a matter of “triple identity”: the marks were highly similar, the services were identical, and the trade channels and consumer base were also identical. As a result, the interim injunction was made absolute (the test of confusion applied here was from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection).
The defendant appealed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, where, besides arguing that the injunction was incorrect, it contended that “4GS” was derived from its trade name and therefore not in bad faith. Having been incorporated in 2015, the defendant added that it had substantial goodwill and reputation in the market from continuous use over the years.
The Division Bench, by order dated December 3, 2025, dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction, observing that the defendant’s corporate name “4 Group Safeguard and Security Services” was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “G4S” marks, particularly when used for identical security services, where an average consumer was likely to be confused.
The defendant next pursued a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Division Bench order, which heard the matter in February 2026.
In these proceedings, the plaintiff raised an issue regarding the defendant’s inconsistent pleadings and reliance on incorrect, artificially generated or “made up” judgments in the SLP. The Court advised the defendant’s counsel to rely only on official and authoritative sources for legal research and citations.
The Supreme Court eventually dismissed the defendant’s SLP by its order of February 13, 2026, clarifying that the dismissal was on merits, and not due to deficiencies in pleadings or citations. As a result, the injunction continues to operate, and the defendant remains restrained from using the marks in contention, including “4GS”, the related trade names, among others, pending final adjudication of the Suit.
This matter reaffirms the settled legal position that approval of a corporate name by the MCA or the ROC does not provide any immunity against trademark infringement or passing off claims. The Delhi High Court decisions in the case reinforce that using a registered trademark (or a deceptively similar mark) as part of a trade name can independently constitute infringement under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly where the parties operate in the same business and cater to the same consumer base. It is also clear that Indian courts follow a particularly strict approach in “triple identity” cases, where similarity of marks, identity of services, and overlap of trade channels increase the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s observations regarding incorrect or fabricated citations are an important reminder of diligence, accuracy and authentic referencing in pleadings.
About the authors: Mehak Dhingra is a Managing Associate and Yogita Rathore is a Senior Associate at Obhan Mason.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.