Delhi District Court
Wd 40 Manufacturing Company vs Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia on 28 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 04 (DIGITAL) -
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS (COMM) 464/24
WD-40 Manufacturing Company
9715 Business park Avenue,
San Diego, CA 92131
U.S.A
..... Plaintiff
Versus
Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia
Shop No. 2, Janjikar Street,
Vidhya Bhawan Opposite Janabai School,
Near Masjid Bandar, Mumbai-400003,
Maharashtra, India
... Defendant No.1
M/s Global International
Shop No. 2, Janjikar Street,
Vidhya Bhawan Opposite Janabai School,
Near Masjid Bandar, Mumbai-400003,
Maharashtra, India
Also, at
5 Floor, Room No 503, Transil Building,
Rambhau Bhoghale Marg,
Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400010
... Defendant No. 2
Moiz Kausar Kapadia
Grd Floor, 1, 4, Vidya Bhuvan,
Janjikar Street, Kamac Bridge,
Mandvi, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400003
.... Defendant No.3
M/s Global Trading
Grd Floor, 1, 4, Vidya Bhuvan,
Janjikar Street, Kamac Bridge,
Mandvi, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400003
.... Defendant No.4
AJAY
KUMAR CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 1 of 40
JAIN WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia
Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2026.04.28
16:15:34 +0530
Bharti Airtel Limited
Airtel Center, Plot No. 16,
Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV,
Gurugram - 122015, India
... Defendant No. 5
Defendant No.6 deleted
(but numbering retained for the sake of convenience and coherence.)
Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited
Office -101, Saffron No Centre Point,
Panchwati 5 Rasta,Amba wadi ,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India- 380006
.... Defendant No. 7
Axis Bank Limited
Trishul, 3rd Floor, Opp. Samartheswar Temple,
Near Law Garden, Ellisbridge,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat -380006
.... Defendant No.8
Kotak Mahindra Bank
27 Bkc, C 27, G-Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandrarfi), Mumbai,
Maharashtra, Pin Code-400 051
.... Defendant No.9
Date of institution : 01.10.2024
Date on which final argument was concluded : 17.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of the order : 28.04.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit under Section 134 & 135 of Trademarks Act, 1999, section 51 & 55 of the Copyright Act 1957 for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of the plaintiff's Trademark/ Label 'WD-40', passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc., filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a company duly CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 2 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia organized and existing under the laws of the United States of America. The present suit has been instituted through its constituted attorney which is duly authorized to institute and prosecute the present proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing a wide range of chemical products including industrial chemical preparations, lubricating sprays, penetrating oils, rust prevention and corrosion control agents, protective and decorative coatings, cleaning and polishing preparations and allied and cognate goods, along with services connected therewith.
3. It is further stated that in or about the year 1957, the plaintiff, through its predecessors, honestly and bona fide conceived, coined and adopted the trademark "WD-40", and in or about the year 1960, adopted the distinctive trade-dress comprising a shield device with a unique combination and placement of blue, yellow and red colours along with the trademark "WD-40". The said trademark and trade- dress are distinctive, arbitrary and form essential and distinguishing features of the plaintiff's goods and business. The trademark "WD-40"
also forms an essential part of the plaintiff's trade name.
4. It is further stated that the plaintiff is the registered CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 3 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia proprietor of several trademark registrations in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in respect of the word mark "WD-40", "WD-40 SPECIALIST", the shield device, and various trade-dress registrations incorporating the distinctive colour combination and placement. The said registrations are valid and subsisting and confer exclusive statutory rights upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also lawfully acquired certain registrations by way of assignment from its predecessor-in-interest, and the same stand duly recorded before the Trade Marks Registry.
S. NO. TRADE CLASS REG NO. STATUS DISCLAIMER MARK
1. 1 473834 Registered Registration of this trademark shall give 17th June, 1987 no right to the Journal No. 1250 exclusive use of the numerals '40'.
2. 3 473835 Registered Registration of this trademark shall 17th June, 1987 give no right to Journal No. 1187 the exclusive use of the letters "WD"
and numeral "40".
3. 2 462535 Registered Registration of this trademark 31st October, shall give no 1986 right to exclusive use of numerals Journal No. 1016 "40"
4. 4 536881 Registered The trademark shall be limited to the CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 4 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia 13th September, colours red, yellow, blue & white as 1990 shown in the representation on the form of the application.
5. WD-40 2 1344261 Registered None 14TH March, 2005 Journal No. 1351
6. WD-40 4 1344262 Registered None 14th March, 2005 Journal No. 1339(S-I)
7. 4 1364403 Registered None 16th June, 2005 Journal No. 1347
8. 2 1364404 Registered None 16th June, 2005 Journal No. 1352
9. 4 1364405 Registered The mark shall be limited to the colours 16th June, 2005 red, yellow and Journal No. 1352 violet as shown in the representation on the form of the application.
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 5 of 40WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia
10. 2 1364406 Registered The mark shall be limited to the 16th June, 2005 colours red, yellow, Journal No. 1352 and violet as shown in the representation on the form of the application.
11. 2 1364407 Registered The mark shall be limited to the 16th June, 2005 colours yellow, and Journal No. 1352 violet as shown in the representation on the form of the application.
12. WD-40 3 2570353 Registered Registration of this trademark shall give SPECIALIST 18/07/2008 no right to the Journal No. 1352 exclusive use of the word specialist separately.
13. WD-40 2 2570352 Registered N.A SPECIALIST 26th July 2013 Journal No. 1756
14. WD-40 4 2570354 Registered Registration of this CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 6 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia SPECIALIST 26/07/2013 trademark shall give no right to the Journal No. 1756 exclusive use of the word specialist
15. 2 1495076 Registered The blank space appearing in the 10/10/2006 mark shall, when the Journal No. 1391 mark is in use, be occupied only by matter of a wholly descriptive and non-
trademark character.
16. 2 534977 Registered Registration of this trademark shall give 19/03/2009 no right to the Journal No. 1400 exclusive use of the device of bottle except as substantially show on of subject to restricting the colours to red, yellow and blue as shown in the label.
17. 4 1495078 Registered None 22/09/2008 Journal No. 1391
5. It is further stated that the plaintiff has been using the "WD-40" trademark and trade-dress in India since about the year CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 7 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia 1986-87 and has continuously and extensively used the same in the course of trade. The plaintiff has also adopted the said trademark as part of its domain names, including www.wd40.com and www.wd40company.com. Owing to long, continuous and extensive use, the plaintiff's goods under the said trademarks have achieved significant goodwill, reputation and recognition in India.
6. It is further stated that the plaintiff has extensively promoted and advertised its products under the said "WD-40" trademarks and trade-dress through print and electronic media, trade literature and other promotional activities, both globally and in India, thereby further enhancing the goodwill and reputation attached to the said trademarks and trade-dress. It is further stated that the plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of copyrights in artistic works comprising the shield device, stylized "WD-40" mark and the distinctive trade-dress with specific colour placement, which copyrights are valid and subsisting under the Copyright Act, 1957.
S. No. Copyright Label Filing Date Registration Registration No. Date
1. A-141505/2022 01/11/2012 18/04/2022
2. A-141506/2022 01/11/2012 18/04/2022 CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 8 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia
7. It is alleged that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, acting individually and in collusion with each other, are engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading and marketing rust removers, lubricants, penetrating oils and allied goods and have adopted and are using the trademark "WD-40", the shield device and an identical or deceptively similar trade-dress incorporating the same colour combination and placement in respect of their goods. It is further alleged that the impugned goods of the defendants are counterfeit and not genuine products of the plaintiff. The said goods differ from the plaintiff's original products in packaging features, barcodes, pictorial depictions, absence of authorised distributor details and other material aspects, thereby clearly establishing that the defendants' goods are fake and infringing.
8. It is further alleged that the defendants' use of the impugned trademarks and trade-dress is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and trade-dress and amounts to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957, and passing off. It is further alleged that the defendants' goods are identical and/or allied and cognate to those of the plaintiff and their unlawful acts are likely to cause deception and confusion among consumers, leading to dilution of the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation and enabling the defendants to derive unfair advantage from the plaintiff's well-known trademarks and trade-dress.
9. Lastly, the plaintiff has prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's trademarks, trade-dress and copyrights, delivery-up of infringing CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 9 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia goods, directions against telecom service providers and banks facilitating the impugned activities, damages quantified at Rs. 25,00,000/- or rendition of accounts, costs of litigation and other ancillary reliefs.
Acts of Defendants
10. It is stated that defendant No.1, namely Mr. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia, is the owner and operator of M/s Global International, arrayed as defendant No.2, and defendant No.3, namely Mr. Moiz Kausar Kapadia, is the owner and operator of M/s Global Trading, arrayed as defendant No.4 herein. It is stated that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are acting in collusion and connivance with each other in carrying out the impugned activities and are collectively referred to as the defendants. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not aware of the exact constitution of the defendants, including the names of partners, proprietors or other persons in control, if any, and the defendants are called upon to disclose the same.
11. It is further stated that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are engaged in the business of manufacturing, wholesaling, trading, advertising, supplying, marketing and dealing in rust removers, lubricants, maintenance sprays, penetrating oils and allied goods and services, and have adopted and are using in the course of trade the trademark 'WD-40', the shield device and an identical and/or deceptively similar trade-dress comprising a shield device with a specific placement and combination of colours blue, yellow and red in relation to their impugned goods and business. A representation of the impugned products bearing the impugned trademarks and trade-dress is depicted CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 10 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia hereinbelow.
, ,
12. It is further stated that the defendants are neither the proprietors nor authorized users of the impugned trademarks and trade-dress and have adopted and are using the same without the leave, licence or consent of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the trademark 'WD-40', the shield device or the distinctive trade-dress of the plaintiff, and their adoption and use thereof is in clear violation of the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights.
13. It is further stated that the impugned goods being manufactured and sold by the defendants are fake and counterfeit and are not genuine products of the plaintiff. The counterfeit nature of the impugned goods is evident from differences in barcode features, packaging design, representation and placement of pictorial depictions, absence of details of authorized distributors and other material features. It is further stated that the odor and overall quality of the impugned goods are materially different from the genuine products of the plaintiff.
14. It is further stated that upon becoming aware of the defendants' impugned activities, the plaintiff conducted a search of the records of the Trade Marks Registry in relevant classes and found that no trademark, shield device or trade-dress comprising the specific CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 11 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia colour combination and placement of blue, yellow and red is registered or pending in the name of the defendants, thereby establishing that the defendants have no lawful rights in the impugned trademarks or trade-dress. It is further stated that the impugned trademarks and trade-dress adopted and used by the defendants are identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'WD-40' trademarks, shield device and trade-dress in each and every manner including visually, phonetically, structurally, in overall get-up, colour scheme and placement, and in their essential and distinctive features.
15. It is further stated that the goods of the defendants bearing the impugned trademarks and trade-dress are identical and/or allied and cognate to the plaintiff's goods and are likely to cause confusion and deception amongst members of the trade and public, leading them to believe that the defendants' impugned goods originate from or are associated with the plaintiff. The defendants are thereby deriving unfair advantage from the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's trademarks and trade-dress. It is further stated that the impugned acts of the defendants amount to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, infringement of the plaintiff's copyrights under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and also constitute passing off.
16. It is further stated that defendant No. 5, namely Bharti Airtel Limited, and defendant No. 7, namely Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, are telecom service providers whose mobile connections are being used by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for communication, solicitation of orders and facilitation of the impugned infringing and passing-off CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 12 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia activities. Defendant No. 8, namely Axis Bank Limited, and defendant No. 9, namely Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, are providing banking and financial services, including maintenance of bank accounts and UPI facilities, which are being used to receive and route proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods. The impugned acts of defendant Nos. 1 to 4, so facilitated, constitute infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyrights and also amount to passing off. It is further stated that due to the defendants' impugned acts, the plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable loss, injury and damage to its goodwill and reputation, which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and unless restrained, the defendants will continue their unlawful activities to the grave prejudice of the plaintiff.
17. Vide order dated 23.10.2024, ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued against the defendant nos. 1 to 4.
EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS
18. Defendants were duly served through various modes including speed post and electronic service. As per the record, defendant Nos. 1 and 3 were served through WhatsApp on 07.03.2025, defendant No. 2 on 10.03.2025 and defendant No. 4 on 01.04.2025; however, despite service, no written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 within the prescribed period of 120 days, resulting in forfeiture of their right to file written statement in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Defendant Nos. 7 CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 13 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia to 9 were also duly served but failed to comply with the orders of this Hon'ble Court, while defendant No. 6 had filed affidavit of compliance and vide order dated 27.05.2025 deleted from the array of parties. Considering these facts, on 20.08.2025, Ld. Predecessor of this Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendant nos. 1 to 4.
19. The plaintiff, thereafter, led ex-parte PE on 15.11.2025. PW-1 Mrs. Sangita Bansal, AR of plaintiff company was examined by the plaintiff, who relied upon the following documents:-
S. NO. Particulars Exhibits No.
True Representation of Exh. PW1/1 (colly)
Plaintiff's WD-40 trademark
1
bearing the shield device and
trade dress.
True Representation of the Exh. PW1/2 (colly)
2 impugned products of the
Defendant & its shield device.
Comparison chart of Plaintiff's trade Exh. PW1/3 (colly)
mark bearing the shield device and
3
trade dress vis-a-vis Defendant's
trade mark and trade dress
Copy of the Plaintiff's official Exh. PW1/4 (colly) website and several e-commerce websites showing the Plaintiff's 4 products being sold under its said WD-40 trade mark, trade dress.
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 14 of 40WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia Copy of List of 17 registered Exh. PW1/5(colly) 5 WD-40 & formative trademarks of the Plaintiff in India.
Legal proceeding certificate Ex. PW1/6 (colly) (LPC), renewal certificate (Original 6 pertaining to Plaintiff's trade misplaced) mark bearing reg. no. 473834 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/7 (colly) (LPC), renewal certificate (OSR) 7 pertaining to Plaintiff's trade mark bearing reg. no. 473835 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/8 (OSR) (LPC), renewal certificate (colly) 8 pertaining to Plaintiff's trade mark bearing reg. no. 462535 Copy of status page, Trade Mark. PW1/9 Marks Journal and Registration (colly) 9 certificate and renewal letter pertaining to Plaintiff's trade mark bearing reg. no. 536881 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/10 (LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR) 10 trade mark bearing reg. no.
1344261 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/11 11 (LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (OSR)(colly) trade mark bearing reg. no.
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 15 of 40WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia 1344262 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/12 (LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR) 12 trade mark bearing reg. no.
1364403 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/13 (LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR) 13 trade mark bearing reg. no.
1364404 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/14 (LPC) pertaining Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR) 14 trade mark bearing reg. no.
1364405
Copy of status page, Trade Exh. PW1/15
Marks Journal and Registration (colly) (OSR)
certificate, Legal Proceeding
15
Certificate (LPC) pertaining to
Plaintiff's trade mark bearing
reg. no. 1364406
Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/16
(LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR)
16
trade mark bearing reg. no.
1364407
Copy of status page, Trade Mark. PW1/17
Marks Journal, Registration (colly)
17
certificate, renewal certificate
pertaining to Plaintiff's trade
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 16 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia mark bearing reg. no. 2570352 Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/18 (LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR) 18 trade mark bearing reg. no.
2570353
Copies of status page, Trade Mark. PW1/19
Marks Journal, Registration (colly)
19 certificate, renewal certificate
pertaining to Plaintiff's trade
mark bearing reg. no. 2570354
Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/20
(LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly) (OSR)
20
trade mark bearing reg. no.
1495076
Trade Marks Journal and Exh. PW1/21(colly)
Registration certificate (original misplaced)
21
pertaining to Plaintiff's trade
mark bearing reg. no. 534977
Legal Proceeding Certificate Exh. PW1/22
(LPC) pertaining to Plaintiff's (colly)
22
trade mark bearing reg. no.
1495078
Copies of TM-M form receipts Exh. PW1/23
towards obtaining Legal (colly)
23 Proceedings Certificate (LPC)
pertaining to registration nos.
2570352 and 2570354
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 17 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia Copy of List of 2 Copyright Exh. PW1/24 24 Registrations granted to the (colly) Plaintiff Certified copies of Copyright Exh. PW1/25 Registration Certificate along (colly) with Extracts from the Register 25 of Copyrights for the Registration numbered as A-141505/2022 Certified copies of Copyright Exh. PW1/26 Registration Certificate along (colly) with Extracts from the Register 26 of Copyrights for the Registration numbered as A-141506/2022 List of international trademark Exh. PW1/27(colly) applications pertaining to 27 WD-40 and its formative trademarks and trade-dresses Copies of the international Exh. PW1/28 registrations obtained by the (colly) 28 Plaintiff for the said WD-40 trade mark, trade dress, in various jurisdictions Copy of Declaration issued by Exh. PW1/29 29 Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd. (colly) confirming the manufacturing CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 18 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia of WD-40 in India since 1985 Copies of various Marketing Exh. PW1/30 30 Distributor Agreements of the (colly) Plaintiff with other companies Copy of Deed of Assignments Exh. PW1/31 dated 14.05.2004 & 24.05.2005 (colly) 31 between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's predecessors Copies of the declarations Exh. PW1/32 signed by Shri. Sudhanshu Vats, (colly) the Deputy Managing Director of Pidilite Industries Limited (the authorized Marketing and Distribution partner of Applicant in India) on the letter-
32 head of Pidilite Industries
Limited and of WD-40
Manufacturing Company,
providing the annual Retail
Sales figures of WD-40
products sold in and exported
from India from 2016 to 2023.
List Promotional activities in Exh. PW1/33
India from the year at least since (colly)
33 1996 till date and representative
estimate of its expenses in India
for the said promotional
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 19 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia activities Copies of Statements of Exh. PW1/34 advertisement expenditure along (colly) with copies of Plaintiff's 34 Promotional Bills/ invoices thereof under its said WD-40 trade mark and trade dress List of sales figures of the Exh. PW1/35 Plaintiff - globally, (colly) 35 domestically and country specific Copies of few Sales Invoices Exh. PW1/36 issued by/to Plaintiff's Indian (colly) 36 Distributor of Products under its said WD-40 trade mark and trade dress.
Copy of the promotional Exh. PW1/37
37 material of the Plaintiff's (colly)
WD-40 Trademark/ trade dress.
Printout of the Miharu Exh. PW1/38
newspaper wherein the (colly)
38
Trademark Cautionary Notice
was published in in Maldives.
Copy of the article titled Exh. PW1/39
"Customers stockpiled WD-40 (colly)
39
because of prices hikes. Its
stock is soaring" by Jordon
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 20 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia Valinsky for CNN Business Copies pertaining to images of various IPR trainings Exh. PW1/40 40 organized/participated by the (colly) Applicant for the officers of Police, Customs and NACIN.
Copy of the notifications received from the Customs Exh. PW1/41 41 regarding detained (colly) consignments. Copy of screenshot of Exh. PW1/42 42 www.amazon.in where WD-40 (colly) is tagged as best-seller product Copy of excerpts of "Kantar Exh. PW1/43 Brand Compass Research, (colly) 43 2021" report by Lucidity Research/ Kantar. Copy of Reported Judgement in Exh. PW1/44 favour of Plaintiff "WD-40 (colly) Manufacturing Company Vs. Khemchand Enterprises and anr. 44 Passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court - 2013 (53) PTC 523 (Del.) in CS (OS) No. 2149/ 2007 and Orders Copies of various District Court Exh. PW1/45 45 Orders in connection with (colly) successful legal actions initiated CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 21 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia by the Plaintiff for enforcement of its rights in the said WD-40 trade mark, trade dress in favour of the Plaintiff Copies of the orders of the Exh. PW1/46 appropriate authorities of (colly) Ukraine, Costa Rica and U.S.A. 46 recognizing Applicant's trademark 'WD-40' as a well-
known mark.
Copies of TM-M form receipts Exh. PW1/47
towards obtaining Legal (colly)
47 Proceedings Certificate (LPC)
pertaining to registration nos.
536881 and 534977
Copy of Power of Attorney in Exh. PW1/48
48
favour of Ms. Sangita Bansal (colly)
Printout of the Order dated Exh. PW1/49
26.02.2024 of the Hon'ble High (colly)
Court of Delhi in favor of the
Plaintiff in the matter WD 40
49 MANUFACTURING
COMPANY VS. H P
ENTERPRISES & ORS having
case no. CS COMM. 141/2024.
www.dhc.nic.in
Printout of the Order dated Exh. PW1/50
50
30.08.2024 of the Hon'ble High (colly)
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 22 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia Court of Delhi in favor of the Plaintiff in the matter WD 40 MANUFACTURING COMPANY VS. THE WAXPOL INDUSTRIES LIMITED having case no. CS COMM. 739/2024 www.dhc.nic.in Printouts of the listing of Defendant Exh. PW1/51 51 Nos.1 & 2 on 3rd party interactive (colly) website IndiaMart Printout of the Brochure of the Exh. PW1/52 52 Defendant No. 1 and 2 from (colly) Indiamart Printouts of the listing of Defendant Exh. PW1/53 53 No.1 and 2 on 3rd party interactive (colly) website TradeIndia Printouts of the GST Details of Exh. PW1/54 54 the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from (colly) GST Portal Printouts of the GST Details of Exh. PW1/55 55 the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 (colly) from GST Portal Printout of screenshots of Exh. PW1/56 complete conversation over (colly) 56 WhatsApp for the purchase of impugned WD-40 products from Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 & 4 CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 23 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia on mobile nos. +91-
8291553444, +91-7861901770
and INDIAMART Whatsapp
No. +91- 9696969696
Printout of screenshots of Exh. PW1/57
Catalogue of the Defendant (colly)
57
No.1 and 2 on WhatsApp
number +91-8291553444
Printout of the Proforma Invoice Exh. PW1/58
issued by the Defendant Nos.3 (colly)
58
and 4 for advance payment for
the impugned WD-40 products.
Printout of the screenshot of the Exh. PW1/59
Paytm QR Code bearing UPI ID (colly)
- 9022252786@ptaxis for the
59
advance payment of the
impugned WD-40 products
from Defendants
Printout of the screenshot of the
advance payment made to the
Defendant No. 3 and 4 on UPI
ID- 9022252786@ptaxis during Exh. PW1/60
60
chat on mobile no. (colly)
+917861901770 towards
advance payment of impugned
WD-40 products
61 Printouts of the screenshot from Exh. PW1/61
the Truecaller of the mobile no.
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 24 of 40
WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia +91-7861901770 showing the (colly) suggested name Printouts of the screenshot from Exh. PW1/62 the Truecaller of the mobile no. (colly) 62 +91-8048600892 showing the suggested name Printouts of the screenshot from Exh. PW1/63 the Truecaller of the mobile no. (colly) 63 +91-8291553444 showing the suggested name Photographs of the impugned Exh. PW1/64 WD 40 products as obtained (colly) 64 from the market from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 during the course of their impugned activities Affidavit in compliance of order Exh.PW1/65
65. 11 rule 6 of Commercial Courts Act dated 28.09.2024 Affidavit in compliance of order Exh.PW1/66
66. 11 rule 6 of Commercial Courts Act dated 28.09.2024
20. No other witness was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and the exparte PE was closed.
21. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the records of the case.
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 25 of 40WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia
22. At the very outset, I may observe that the provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are very clear which reads as under:
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
xxxxxx xxxx (xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits;
xxxxxxx
23. The provision of Section 2 (1) (c) (xvii) of Commercial Courts Act as above is very much clear. The subject matter of the present suit arises out of disputes relating to Intellectual Property Rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names etc. which falls under the category of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the facts which alleged in the plaint comes under the "commercial dispute".
24. In the present case, the first cause of action arose in the second week of September 2024, when the plaintiff discovered that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were advertising, offering for sale, wholesaling and inviting trade enquiries for counterfeit goods bearing the impugned WD-40 trademark and trade-dress through popular interactive websites and e-commerce platforms such as Indiamart and Trade India, including within Delhi. The cause of action further arose when the plaintiff, through enquiries made on the defendants' WhatsApp business account and mobile numbers, found catalogues advertising the impugned counterfeit products and, on 16.09.2024, placed an order for the said goods to be delivered at Fatehpur Beri, CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 26 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia Delhi, and made advance payment to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 pursuant to a pro-forma invoice issued in connection with the impugned goods. The cause of action again arose when the plaintiff learnt that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were also physically advertising, wholesaling and dealing in the impugned counterfeit goods in markets within Delhi and when samples of such goods were obtained without invoices. The cause of action is continuous and recurring, as the defendants are carrying on the impugned infringing and passing-off activities unabated. Further, the period of limitation for filing a suit for infringement of a trademark/passing off is three years from the date of infringement/passing off. The present suit was instituted on 01.10.2024. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the present suit within the period of limitation. Further, the suit is within the meaning of Section 12 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 since the plaintiff being the dominus litis has a choice to choose the forum and remedy and the estimated value of the suit should be in excess of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
25. This Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been advertising, promoting, offering for sale and soliciting trade enquiries for the impugned counterfeit goods through interactive websites, e-commerce platforms and a WhatsApp business account, all of which are accessible and have been accessed within the territorial limits of this Court, including areas such as Malviya Nagar, Saket, Safdarjung Enclave, Fatehpur Beri, Mehrauli and Hauz Khas. The defendants had also agreed to supply the impugned goods to the plaintiff at an address situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, and defendant Nos. 3 and CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 27 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia 4 accepted payment in furtherance thereof. Additionally, the defendants have been physically dealing in the impugned goods in markets within Delhi, where samples were procured. Consequently, the cause of action has arisen wholly and/or in part within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
26. On this aspect of jurisdiction, reliance is placed upon Tata Sons Private Limited vs Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Ors., FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/2022 reaffirming the well-established principles in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :
17. We are in complete agreement with the above view of the English Court. Even if a website is not directed at customers in a particular country, the fact that they are not restricted by the website to have access to it, is enough to characterise it as targeting. Targeting need not be a very aggressive act of marketing aiming at a particular set of customers. Mere looming presence of a website in a geography and ability of the customers therein to access the website is sufficient, in a given case. It may not be forgotten that in the matters of infringement of trademark, it is the possibility of confusion and deception in the mind of public due to infringing trademark that is good enough for the Court to grant injunction.
27. If physical showroom, indulging into infringement activities, can vest territorial jurisdiction in a Court where the physical store is situated, the virtual showroom shall also vest territorial jurisdiction in a Court from where the said virtual showroom can be accessed. Thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.
28. From the averments made in the plaint and the documents brought on record which were proved by the witness PW-1 Mrs. Sangita Bansal, who is AR of the plaintiff company. She made statement in consonance to the averments made in the plaint and relied CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 28 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia upon exhibited documents.
29. The PW-1 by way of her unrebutted testimony has been able to prove that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's registered and well- known Trademark/label WD-40. In view of absence of any defense from the defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants from restraining the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 by themselves as also through their individual proprietors, partners, associates, assignors, heirs, successors, distributors, dealers, whole sellers, stockiest, agents, and all others acting for and on their behalf jointly and severally from manufacturing, wholesaling, trading, advertising, supplying, marketing, or otherwise using or dealing in rust removers, lubricants, maintenance sprays, penetrating oils or any other identical/similar and/or allied and cognate nature of goods as compared to the goods of the Plaintiff, or any other type of goods or services, bearing the impugned trademark 'WD-40' word or stylized; impugned shield device per se or in yellow colour bearing the word/mark WD-40 , impugned trade-dress bearing the shield device and specific colour combination and placement of blue, yellow and red colours , or or any other trademark or trade-dress identical with and/or deceptively similar to CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 29 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia the Plaintiff's said 'WD-40' trademark and 'WD-40' trademarks and trade-dresses , , or from doing any other act or deed amounting to or likely to-
i. Infringe the Plaintiff's registered trademarks under registration numbers 462535, 1344261, 1344262, 2570353, 473834, 473835, 536881, 1364403, 1364404, 1364405, 1364406, 1364407, 1495076, 534977, 1495078, 2570352, 2570354;
ii. Passing-off or enable others to passing-off their goods and business as that of the Plaintiff under its 'WD-40' trademarks and trade-dress; Damages
30. As regards damages, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards damages and costs arising from trademark and copyright infringement and passing-off by the Defendants through unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's WD-40 trademarks, trade dress, and sale of counterfeit products. Relying on settled law laid down by the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs Reckitt Benckiser India and followed in Super Cassettes and SanDisk, it is submitted that compensatory damages may be reasonably estimated based on the price of genuine goods, quantity, and duration of infringing activities, along with damages for loss of reputation. The relevant paras of decision in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, MANU/DE/0353/2014 are reproduced as under-
In the present case, the plaintiff (Reckitt) has been able to prove, successfully, that HUL telecast the impugned 30 second CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 30 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia advertisement on a large number of occasions (2763 times, to be precise, according to Ex. PW-1/19). The innuendo was cleverly designed to suggest that Reckitt's DETTOL Original caused damage to the skin. The advertiser, i.e. HUL, was conscious that it was crossing the boundary between permissible "puffing" and what was prohibited in law. The evidence on record, in the form of HUL's witnesses testimony, is that Rs.2.5 crores was spent in July 2007 alone for advertising its product. HUL also admitted during the trial that the DETTOL Original brand was worth Rs.200 crores. Such being the case, this Court holds that the Single Judge's reluctance to award general damages was not justified. It would be necessary to mention in this context that it may not be possible for an otherwise successful plaintiff, in a disparagement or slander of goods action to always quantify the extent of loss; there would necessarily be an element of dynamism in this, because of the nature of the product, the season it is sold in, the possible future or long term impact that may arise on account of the advertisement, etc. Therefore, courts the world over have resorted to some rough and ready calculations.
64. In view of the evidence presented before this Court (i.e. the number of times the advertisement was telecast, the quantum of advertisement expenses of HUL, the amount spent by Reckitt, to advertise its product, etc) this Court is of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover general damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. The impugned judgment and order is modified to that extent, and the cross objection by Reckitt, is consequently allowed in these terms.
Further the Honorable High Court of Delhi in SANDISK LLC, & ANR versus TRANSTON in CS(COMM) 695/2017, 2018:DHC:3103 held as under -
CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 31 of 40WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia
12. The plaintiffs have filed their ex parte evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Vishal Garg (PW1) the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiffs. In his affidavit, PW1 has deposed as under:- "4 ....... a) Actual lost sales If the quality seized by the local commissioner is the stock for 15 days (considering the fast- moving nature of the products), and the Defendant had been doing business for at least 6 months prior to the institution of the present suit and the grant of the ex parte ad interim injunction by this Hon'ble Court, the actual value of the Defendant's products would be Rs. 2,76,360/- (value of stock seized by the Local Commissioner) x by 6 = Rs. 33,16,320. The detailed computation is as below:-
The value of stocks for 6 months would be Rs. 33,16,320
b) Additionally, the Plaintiffs pray for damages of Rs.
67,00,000 for the following heads: - Loss of business due to confusion and deception of its customers - Loss of confidence and trust of customers owing to poor quality of the Defendant's products. - Loss of "image" among members of the trade as the Plaintiffs' goodwill as the Plaintiffs have no control over the production. - Loss of the confidence or trust of the customers of the Plaintiffs and its subsidiaries in genuine products of the CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 32 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia Plaintiffs, as a consequence of having placed undue reliance on the inferior quality, spurious merchandise being marketed by the Defendants in identical packaging.
5. Actual cost of litigation in the matter is Rs. 10,31,125/-. The breakdown is provided below: a. Court fees, Costs for drafting and filing the lawsuit: Rs. 4,99,200/- b. Costs for various court appearances from October 2017 till date: c. Costs for all forms of Service : Rs. 12,675 d. Costs for the Local Commission proceedings: i. Fee of Local Commissioner : Rs. 1,00,000/- ii. Coordinating assisting and travelling for the commission : Rs. 2,82,750/-"
13. This Court is of the view that due to extensive use, the plaintiffs' mark SANDISK, and Red Frame logo have acquired reputation and goodwill globally as well as in India.
14. Keeping in view the pleadings, documents as well as evidence on record, this Court is also of the view that the defendants are using the registered trade mark SANDISK of the plaintiffs and its product packaging to sell counterfeit products with a view to trade upon and benefit from the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs' mark and pass off its services as that of the plaintiffs.
15. Consequently, the allegation that the trademark SANDISK, and Red Frame logo used by defendant amounts to infringement of plaintiffs' trademarks is correct. The use of the plaintiffs' mark by the defendants is bound to cause incalculable losses, harm and injury to the plaintiff and immense public harm.
16. Coordinate Benches of this Court in M/s General Electric Company v. Mr. Altamas Kha & Others CS(OS) No. 1283/2006 decided on 18.12.2008 and Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Papat & Anr. 118 (2005) DLT 580 have granted compensatory damages based on certain assumptions of sales. The relevant portions of the said judgments are reproduced hereinbelow:- A) CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 33 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia M/s General Electric Company v. Mr. Altamas Kha & Others CS(OS) No. 1283/2006 decided on 18.12.2008: "13. The next question which arises is of the claim of the plaintiff for damages. The Chartered Accountant engaged by the plaintiff by his unrebutted evidence assessed the loss caused to the plaintiff to be of Rs.25 lac. The claim for damages in the plaint was however confined to Rs.20 lac only. As aforesaid, 23 Dehumidifiers were seized by the court commissioner from the premises of the defendants and were left in the superdari of the defendant No.1... The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the defendant was selling each Dehumidifier for approximately Rs.25,000/-. The defendant avoided to show his books of accounts also. From large consignment of 23 Dehumidifiers seized from the premises of the defendants, it is apparent that the defendant No.1 was dealing in large volumes. The cost of the Dehumidifiers to the defendants has not been established but considering that in the last few years, the return on investments in stocks and mutual funds itself has been in excess of 15%, it can safely be assumed that the defendants would be carrying CS(OS) No.1283/2006 Page 9 of 10 on business for returns in excess of return on investments in stocks and mutual funds. Following the said principle I assume that the defendants had a margin of 22 to 25% at least on each Dehumidifier i.e. of over Rs.5,000/- on each Dehumidifier. On this basis I consider the award of damages in the sum of Rs.10 lacs as appropriate. B) Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Papat & Anr. 118 (2005) DLT 580: "6. Plaintiff has also affidavit by way of evidence of Shri Sanjiv Sharma, a Chartered Accountant. Said evidence brings on record and proves the following: xxxx xxxx (iii) xxxx xxxx On the assumption that the defendant sell approximately 100 computers a year, which is purely assumptive, on the further assumption that keeping in view the CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 34 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia operating systems Windows 1998, 400 computers would be loaded with said system, lesser sales of the other software, assumption would be that 200 computers and 20 computers respectively were loaded with the Software Office 2000 STD and Visual Studio 6.0, on the cost per unit of the licensed software estimated loss of business to the plaintiff comes to Rs.
64 lacs.
xxxx xxxx . xxxx xxxx
12. Though assumptive i.e. based on the assumption of sale of 100 computers each year and on the basis of the popularity of the computer software, as also sold computers being loaded with the pirated software, loss of profit to the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 19.75 lacs stands established.
13. It may be true that the financial loss is based on certain assumption, but it cannot be helped for the reason the defendant has chosen to remain ex parte."
17. Consequently, as the plaintiffs in their evidence have stated that the actual value of the goods seized by the Local Commissioner was Rs. 2,76,360/-, and if it is assumed that the quantity of the seized goods seized is stock for fifteen days and that the defendant had been doing business for at least six months prior to the institution of the present suit, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation of Rs. 33,16,320/- (Rs. 2,76,360/- x 6).
31. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that in the present case, the Defendants were actively manufacturing and supplying infringing goods through online platforms and local markets, with an estimated supply capacity of 1000 units per month at Rs. 700 per unit, resulting in a monthly loss of Rs. 7,00,000/- and a total estimated loss of Rs. 21,00,000/- for three months. Thus the CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 35 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia plaintiff claims Rs. 21,00,000/- as actual damage along with Rs. 4,00,000/- towards reputational damage and Rs. 3,00,000/- towards legal costs.
32. This argument advanced on behalf of the plaintiff suffers from a fundamental defect. The price differential between the competing products, both of 400 ml, is substantial: while the plaintiff's product is priced at Rs. 700, the defendant's product is sold at Rs. 250. In such circumstances, computing damages on the basis of the plaintiff's price would be wholly disproportionate and may, in fact, exceed the defendant's total sales turnover, let alone the profit actually earned by it. Although the plaintiff has rightly contended that its sales stand diluted on account of the defendant's alleged counterfeit activities, it has failed to place on record any cogent or reliable evidence of the defendant's actual sales figures. In the absence of such material, this Court is unable to arrive at a fair or reasonable assessment of damages. Further, it is settled legal position, as reflected in decision of the Delhi High Court in B.C. Hasaram & Sons v. Nirmala Agarwal, 2025: DHC: 9867-DB that the grant of damages in intellectual property matters must rest on cogent and reliable evidence, and cannot be founded on conjecture or speculative assumptions. The relevant paras are reproduced as under-
42. There is already a rich history of precedents establishing that quantum of damages awarded require a reasoned basis tied to evidence of actual loss. In the present case, the absence of cogent reasoning and evidence linking the damages to proven injury, diverges the award from the compensatory principle that governs damages thereby risking unjust enrichment. Further, it must be understood that while awarding damages, the Court plays a dual role of not only safeguarding the rights of the parties but also CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 36 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia balancing the broader contextual factors i.e., compensatory or punitive or both. Thus, we find that it is the evidence which constitutes the bedrock for any award of compensatory or punitive damages. Accordingly, the damages awarded by the learned District Court, having been not based on any sound principle of law, is liable to be set aside on account of lack of evidence.
33. Thus, courts have consistently disapproved the practice of computing damages on the basis of the plaintiff's maximum retail price, emphasizing instead that any award must bear a rational nexus to the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff or the profits earned by the defendant. It has further been underscored that, in the absence of credible material regarding the defendant's sales or turnover, the quantification of damages becomes inherently uncertain, and any excessive or disproportionate award--particularly one that may exceed the defendant's likely gains--would be neither just nor sustainable in law. Consequently, it would neither be just nor equitable to award damages calculated at the rate of Rs. 700 per unit. The plaintiff has further sought to rely upon a representation allegedly made by the defendant on its website indicating a capacity to supply up to 1,000 units per month. However, this assertion, by itself, does not establish that such quantities were in fact manufactured, marketed, or sold. Whether the said claim was merely promotional in nature or reflective of actual commercial activity remains unsubstantiated. In the absence of any supporting material such as invoices, sales records, or independent evidence demonstrating that the defendant achieved or even approached the stated volume of sales, the contention remains speculative. This Court is therefore unable to place reliance on such unverified claims for the purpose of assessing the scale of CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 37 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia infringement or quantifying damages.
34. Accordingly, and in view of the absence of reliable evidence regarding the defendant's actual sales, this Court deems it appropriate to adopt a reasonable and conservative basis for the computation of damages. Taking into account the defendant's selling price of Rs. 250 per unit (400 ml), and assessing the notional scale of infringing activity at 500 units per month over a period of three months, damages are quantified at Rs.3,75,000/-. It is therefore, directed that defendant No. 1 to 4 shall pay damages to the tune of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the plaintiff. In addition, thereto, considering the injury to the plaintiff's goodwill, reputation, and the consequential harm arising from the circulation of counterfeit goods in the market, a further sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded under this head. The aforesaid amounts are, in the opinion of this court, just, reasonable, and proportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Cost of Proceedings
35. Plaintiff has claimed cost of the proceedings as well. Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court feels that the plaintiff is entitled to the court fees incurred. Hence, the defendant no. 1 to 4 shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff towards costs. Relief
36. Injunction Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in their favour and against the defendant no. 1 to 4 and decree of permanent injunction is passed against the defendant no. 1 to 4 thereby restraining themselves as also through their individual proprietors, partners, associates, assignors, heirs, successors, distributors, dealers, CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 38 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia whole sellers, stockiest, agents, and all others acting for and on their behalf jointly and severally from manufacturing, wholesaling, trading, advertising, supplying, marketing, or otherwise using or dealing in rust removers, lubricants, maintenance sprays, penetrating oils or any other identical/similar and/or allied and cognate nature of goods as compared to the goods of the Plaintiff, or any other type of goods or services, bearing the impugned trademark 'WD-40' word or stylized; impugned shield device per se or in yellow colour bearing the word/mark WD-40 , impugned trade-dress bearing the shield device and specific colour combination and placement of blue, yellow and red colours , or or any other trademark or trade-dress identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's said 'WD-40' trademark and 'WD-40' trademarks and trade-dresses , , or from doing any other act or deed amounting to or likely to- i. Infringe the Plaintiff's registered trademarks under registration numbers 462535, 1344261, 1344262, 2570353, 473834, 473835, 536881, 1364403, 1364404, 1364405, 1364406, 1364407, 1495076, CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 39 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia 534977, 1495078, 2570352, 2570354;
ii. Passing-off or enable others to passing-off their goods and business as that of the Plaintiff under its 'WD-40' trademarks and trade-dress.
37. Damages & Cost of Litigation Defendant no. 1 to 4 shall jointly and severally pay Rs.4,00,000/- as damages and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation to the plaintiff within a period of 3 months from the date of decree.
38. Suit is accordingly decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 to 4 for total sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- payable jointly and severally.
39. Decree sheet be prepared after payment of deficit court fee, if any.
40. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 28.04.2026 (AJAY KUMAR JAIN) District Judge (Commercial Court) (Digital-04) /South/Saket/ND/ 28.04.2026 CS (Comm.) No. 464/2024 Dt. 28.04.2026 Page 40 of 40 WD-40 Manufacturing Company Vs. Kausar Ali Hussain Kapadia