Hero Cycles trademark dispute: Supreme Court restores contempt proceedings against Hero Ecotech

The Supreme Court has restored proceedings before a trial court against Hero Ecotech Limited for alleged violation of injunction in a trademark dispute with Hero Cycles Limited [Hero Cycles Vs Hero Ecotech].

In a judgment delivered on February 10, a Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside both a 2025 order of the Patna High Court and a 2019 order of the trial court and directed that the application alleging violation of a court injunction be reconsidered by the trial court afresh.

The dispute was essentially between Pankaj Munjal, who heads Hero Cycles, and Dayanand Munjal, who heads Hero Ecotech.

The case concerns a 2010 family settlement within the Munjal family that divided the Hero Group businesses and the rights to use the “HERO” brand among different family groups headed by members of the Munjal family, including the late Brij Mohan Lal Munjal, Om Prakash Munjal, Satyanand Munjal and Vijay Munjal.

Following this division, the group controlling Hero Cycles Limited retained the right to use the “HERO” trademark in relation to bicycles in India. Hero Ecotech Limited, which was allocated businesses such as electric vehicles, renewable energy and exports, was not permitted to use the “HERO” name in the domestic bicycle business.

In 2014, Hero Cycles filed a civil suit before a Patna court alleging that Hero Ecotech had entered the bicycle market under the brand name “KROSS” while prominently displaying the corporate name “Hero Ecotech Limited” on bicycles and packaging. Hero Cycles argued that this created consumer confusion and violated the agreed restrictions on the use of the “HERO” name.

In September 2014, the trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the use of the “HERO” mark in relation to bicycles and bicycle parts.

Hero Cycles subsequently filed an application alleging that the injunction had been violated and sought action against Hero Ecotech for disobeying the court’s order.

In September 2019, the trial court observed that contempt proceedings be initiated and directed the parties to lead evidence. Hero Ecotech challenged this order before the Patna High Court, which in September 2025 set it aside on the ground that the trial court had not followed the required procedure before making such observations.

Hero Cycles then approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court was required to adjudicate the application on the breach of the injunction strictly in accordance with law.

The Court observed that if the parties seek an inquiry into the alleged violation, both sides must be given a reasonable opportunity in such proceedings.

In these circumstances, the Court set aside both the High Court’s September 3, 2025 order and the trial court’s September 7, 2019 order.

During the hearing, it was pointed out that the application alleging violation of the injunction had been disposed off by the trial court after the High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court clarified that the application would now stand restored before the trial court.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, the question of whether the 2014 interim injunction was violated remains open and will now be examined afresh by the trial court.

Hero cycles was represented by Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shyam Divan and Manish Vashisht with advocates Avishkar Singhvi, Durga Das Bhatla, Ashutosh Nagar, Pushpindu Singh Sodhi, Priyansha Sharma, Aman Sharma, Uditanshu Singh, Navtej Singh, Nidhi Jain, Subhang Shankar Gogoi, Vedansh Vashisht, Anshika and Saloni Bhatt.

Hero Ecotech was represented by Senior Advocate Ramji Srinivasan with advocates NPS Chawla, Sujoy Datta, Pragya Mishra, Maulshree Pathak, Surekh Kant Baxy, Kinjal Goyal, Jasjeet Singh, Aashi Yadav, Shefali Munde and Arjun Bhatia.

[Read Judgment]