INTRODUCTION
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s judgment in Leayan Global (P) Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd[1]., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9128, tackles a trademark dispute over trademarks on footwear, where Bata India Ltd. sought to restrain Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. from using “POWER FLEX” as its trademark. On December 15, 2025, Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla gave the verdict. The Division Bench upheld an interim injunction awarded by the Single Judge against Leayan’s mark only making a few changes to the ancillary directives given in the earlier ruling. It balances prior registration, secondary meanings acquired by common terminology, and fair considerations in interim relief.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Bata India Ltd., a renowned footwear manufacturer in the Indian market, initiated the dispute. Since the early 1970s, Bata has been the registered proprietor of the trademark “POWER” in Class 25, which it has utilized for sports and canvas footwear. Over the years, the mark has acquired substantial commercial recognition through massive sales, targeted advertising campaigns, and endorsements by well-known sports personalities.
Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd., the defendant, is the manufacturer of “RED CHIEF” leather footwear. Around 2010–2011, Leayan began marketing leather shoes under the mark “POWER FLEX”. Bata objected to this use, asserting that “POWER” constituted the dominant and memorable element of Leayan’s composite mark and that such use was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with Bata.
Leayan disputed the assertion, claiming that “POWER” cannot be exclusively appropriated because it is a common dictionary word with positive connotations. It also emphasized differences in product categories and prices, pointing out that its leather shoes were substantially more expensive than Bata’s athletic and canvas shoes. Furthermore, Leayan maintained that Bata’s tardiness in seeking the Court amounted to acquiescence and asserted that honest concurrent usage.
A learned Single Judge granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the use of “POWER FLEX”, while permitting the descriptive tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”. Both parties appealed for different aspects of this order, bringing the matter before the Division Bench.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the word “POWER”, despite being a common dictionary term, possessed sufficient distinctiveness to gain protection under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Whether the addition of the suffix “FLEX” was sufficient to distinguish Leayan’s mark from Bata’s registered mark.
- Whether leather shoes and canvas/sports shoes, which fall under the same class could be regarded as allied or cognate goods.
- Whether the defences of delay, acquiescence, and honest concurrent use were available to Leayan.
- Whether retailers could be treated as equally liable infringers alongside manufacturers under the Act.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Leayan Ltd. contended that “POWER” was a weak and descriptive mark and that Bata could not claim a monopoly over a laudatory expression. In order to invoke prosecution history estoppel, the reliance was placed on claimed inconsistencies in respect of Bata’s position at the Trade Marks Registry. They also maintained that due to the major difference in price between, and market classes of, leather and sports shoes, there was no realistic possibility of confusion arising from the respective brands. The defense for honest concurrent use was bolstered by evidence of years of market activities and endorsements through well-known celebrities.
Bata, on the other hand, relied on the statutory exclusivity conferred by registration under Section 28 and invoked the anti-dissection rule, arguing that “POWER” was the dominant part of both marks. Refuted acquiescence by pointing to its prompt opposition to Leayan’s trademark application before the Registry and asserted that the permission granted to use the descriptive tagline was being misconstrued as a license for continued infringement.
DECISION / ORDER OF THE COURT
The Hon’ble Division Bench of Delhi HC reaffirmed the decision of the Single-Judge bench and upheld the injunction, restraining Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “POWER FLEX” and held that such use infringed Bata’s registered trademark “POWER” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, the Court declined to interfere with the limited permission granted to Leayan to use the phrase “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”. It held that, in this context, the word “POWER” was used descriptively and without trademark prominence and therefore did not amount to infringing use.
ANALYSIS
The Court’s approach to deceptive similarity under Section 29 reflects a consistent reliance on the average consumer standard[2], which prioritizes overall commercial impression over microscopic comparison. In focusing on the importance of the dominant element, the Courts’ ruling reflected a preference by Courts to evaluate trademarks based on how they are encountered by customers in the marketplace. In distinguishing between distinctiveness and descriptiveness; Created under the Imagination Test, the Courts’ rationalisation was that “POWER” can be used to describe shoes, but not in the same way as the term might be applied to electrical and mechanical goods. Because there was an amount of cognitive association to make from “POWER” to footwear, the Courts’ rationale classified the mark as suggestive, and therefore not descriptively identifying of footwear. The Courts’ rationale provides continued protection to those companies that have invested significant amounts of time, money and effort into creating secondary meaning with their common words and prevents competitors from shielding themselves from liability under the guise of “laudatory” when they incorrectly use such terms.
The application of the Scope of Expansion doctrine [3]supports the Court’s reasoning further in rejecting the argument that leather and canvas footwear belong to completely separate channels of trade. In acknowledging how consumers now expect well-known trademarks to have multiple varieties of products due to today’s branding practices, the Court found that the reasonable expectation that “POWER FLEX” may be construed as an extension of a familiar brand owned by Bata was sufficient evidence to support a finding of infringement.
The Court invoked the doctrine of initial interest confusion to illustrate that infringement occurs upon the consumer’s first exposure to an item branded with a trademark. The Court determined that a consumer’s state of “wonderment,” in questioning the source of the item, a well-known trademark, detracts from the ability of the trademark to identify the source of the product, even after any resulting confusion is resolved.
The Court’s rejection of the defenses of delay and acquiescence is instructive. Relying on the settled principle laid down in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia[4], the court reiterated that mere delay does not bar injunctive relief once infringement is established. The plea of acquiescence was rejected on the ground that Bata had actively opposed Leayan’s trademark application before the Trade Marks Registry, and the Court noted that objection and acquiescence are mutually inconsistent. Moreover, the Court made it clear that active objection before the Trade Marks Registry cannot coexist with acquiescence, which necessitates deliberate tolerance. Since it is pertinent at the registration stage and does not function as a substantive defense in an infringement action, the defense of honest concurrent use was similarly ruled to be inapplicable.
CHALLENGES AND CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS
The judgment candidly noted the statutory ambiguity in Section 33, particularly regarding the reference to a “registered trade mark” in the context of acquiescence. Although the Court avoided resolving this ambiguity conclusively.
The evidentiary burden imposed for proving honest concurrent use is another noteworthy aspect. The Court’s rejection of Leayan’s documentation owing to the absence of explicit brand references in invoices, highlights the practical importance of consistent branding in commercial records.
Finally, the court clarified that the Trade Mark Act does not recognize the hierarchies among defendants.
CONCLUSION
The decision in Leayan Global (P) Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. reinforces the protection afforded to suggestive trademarks that have acquired substantial market recognition. By focusing on dominant visual elements and affirming the relevance of initial interest confusion, the Court strengthens trademark law against imitation while preserving room for legitimate descriptive use.
At its core, the judgment reflects a realistic view of consumer behavior. The average buyer relies on quick brand cues rather than precise recollection, and the law must protect this reliance. An established mark, once it earns public trust, must remain clearly identifiable, and competitors cannot be permitted to edge too close under minor variations.
REFERENCE:
This judgement: Leayan Global (P) Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd[5]., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9128
Other judgements referred to in the judgement:
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 13
Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65
Author: Shweta Singh, a final Year Student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur
Read Our Latest Article: HOW MUCH IP IS PRESENT IN A DYSON AIRWRAP? – J.P. Associates
[1] Leayan Global (P) Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9128
[2] Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 13
[3] Laxmikant V. Patel (2002) 3 SCC 65
[4] Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90
[5] Leayan Global (P) Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9128