Trademark Infringement Case H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Vijaypal Dhayal (Red Rose Industries)

Trademark Infringement Case H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Vijaypal Dhayal (Red Rose Industries). Harley-Davidson, a world-renowned motorcycle manufacturer, is not just known for its bikes but also for its wide range of branded merchandise, including clothing, accessories, and footwear. In July 2023, the company discovered that Red Rose Industries—operating under the brand name 'Rontex'—was illegally using a logo that bore an uncanny resemblance to Harley-Davidson’s iconic ‘Eagle Emblem’ on shoes and related products.
The counterfeit goods were being distributed via both offline retail channels and online marketplaces, including prominent platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMART. This unauthorized usage triggered legal action, citing violations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957. 
Search and Seizure: Evidence of Infringement
A local commissioner appointed by the Court executed a raid at the premises of Red Rose Industries. During the operation, 640 pairs of counterfeit shoes bearing the infringing marks were seized. Despite being granted multiple opportunities to defend themselves, the defendants failed to submit a written statement, leading the matter to proceed ex parte meaning the Court heard and ruled the case without their input.
Court’s Analysis: Deceptive Similarity and Malafide Intent
Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, conducted a detailed comparison between the original Harley-Davidson logo and the impugned mark used by Red Rose Industries. The analysis revealed that:

Both logos featured a prominent eagle.

The overall design included a ribbon and shield-like background, characteristic of the Harley-Davidson emblem.

The only notable difference was the replacement of the words ‘Harley-Davidson Clothes’ with ‘Sports Casual’—a distinction the court found superficial and insufficient to avoid confusion.

The Court ruled that the unauthorized use of a nearly identical logo was likely to deceive consumers, causing them to associate the counterfeit products with the prestigious Harley-Davidson brand. This constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. 
Court's Verdict: Protection of Brand Integrity
The Delhi High Court concluded that the defendant had intentionally copied the Harley-Davidson emblem to unfairly benefit from its global reputation and goodwill. This dishonest adoption of a deceptively similar mark was deemed a deliberate attempt to ride on the brand equity built over decades.
Accordingly, the Court granted:

A permanent injunction restraining Red Rose Industries from using, manufacturing, or selling any products bearing the infringing mark.

An order for destruction of all infringing inventory found in the possession of the defendant.

An award of Rs.5 lakh in damages and litigation costs to Harley-Davidson.

Significance of the Judgment: A Strong Message for Brand Abusers
This ruling by the Delhi High Court has wider implications beyond just the parties involved. It reinforces the importance of safeguarding intellectual property, particularly in a marketplace increasingly dominated by e-commerce and brand recognition.
Key takeaways include:

Well-known trademarks enjoy broader protection under Indian IP law, and courts are willing to take strong action even in ex parte proceedings when evidence is compelling.

The judgment deters future infringers by showing that unauthorized use of similar logos, even with minor textual differences, can attract legal and financial consequences.

It reaffirms that online and offline sales of counterfeit goods will be taken seriously by Indian courts, especially when they affect global brands with registered trademarks in India.

Legal Framework Invoked

Trade Marks Act, 1999: The Court recognized Harley-Davidson’s trademark as a well-known mark under Sections 2(1)(zg) and 11(6), which provides enhanced protection against misuse.

Copyright Act, 1957: The emblem in question also qualified as original artistic work, protected under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Principle of Passing Off: The Court emphasized that even in the absence of identical marks, if one party misrepresents their goods as that of another, it constitutes actionable passing off.

Conclusion
The judgment in H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Vijaypal Dhayal (Red Rose Industries) is a significant win not just for Harley-Davidson, but for all businesses who rely on strong brand identities and legal protection of their IP rights in India. It reflects the judiciary’s increasing awareness and proactiveness in addressing trademark violations in the digital era.
This decision sends out a clear signal: India's legal system will not tolerate Trademark infringement of global brands, and violators—regardless of their size or reach—will be held accountable under the law.

Harley-Davidson, a world-renowned motorcycle manufacturer, is not just known for its bikes but also for its wide range of branded merchandise, including clothing, accessories, and footwear. In July 2023, the company discovered that Red Rose Industries—operating under the brand name 'Rontex'—was illegally using a logo that bore an uncanny resemblance to Harley-Davidson’s iconic ‘Eagle Emblem’ on shoes and related products.

The counterfeit goods were being distributed via both offline retail channels and online marketplaces, including prominent platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMART. This unauthorized usage triggered legal action, citing violations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957.

Search and Seizure: Evidence of Infringement

A local commissioner appointed by the Court executed a raid at the premises of Red Rose Industries. During the operation, 640 pairs of counterfeit shoes bearing the infringing marks were seized. Despite being granted multiple opportunities to defend themselves, the defendants failed to submit a written statement, leading the matter to proceed ex parte meaning the Court heard and ruled the case without their input.

Court’s Analysis: Deceptive Similarity and Malafide Intent

Justice Amit Bansal, presiding over the case, conducted a detailed comparison between the original Harley-Davidson logo and the impugned mark used by Red Rose Industries. The analysis revealed that:

Both logos featured a prominent eagle.
The overall design included a ribbon and shield-like background, characteristic of the Harley-Davidson emblem.
The only notable difference was the replacement of the words ‘Harley-Davidson Clothes’ with ‘Sports Casual’—a distinction the court found superficial and insufficient to avoid confusion.

Court's Verdict: Protection of Brand Integrity

The Delhi High Court concluded that the defendant had intentionally copied the Harley-Davidson emblem to unfairly benefit from its global reputation and goodwill. This dishonest adoption of a deceptively similar mark was deemed a deliberate attempt to ride on the brand equity built over decades.

Accordingly, the Court granted:

A permanent injunction restraining Red Rose Industries from using, manufacturing, or selling any products bearing the infringing mark.
An order for destruction of all infringing inventory found in the possession of the defendant.
An award of Rs.5 lakh in damages and litigation costs to Harley-Davidson.

Significance of the Judgment: A Strong Message for Brand Abusers

This ruling by the Delhi High Court has wider implications beyond just the parties involved. It reinforces the importance of safeguarding intellectual property, particularly in a marketplace increasingly dominated by e-commerce and brand recognition.

Key takeaways include:

Well-known trademarks enjoy broader protection under Indian IP law, and courts are willing to take strong action even in ex parte proceedings when evidence is compelling.
The judgment deters future infringers by showing that unauthorized use of similar logos, even with minor textual differences, can attract legal and financial consequences.
It reaffirms that online and offline sales of counterfeit goods will be taken seriously by Indian courts, especially when they affect global brands with registered trademarks in India.

Legal Framework Invoked

Trade Marks Act, 1999: The Court recognized Harley-Davidson’s trademark as a well-known mark under Sections 2(1)(zg) and 11(6), which provides enhanced protection against misuse.
Copyright Act, 1957: The emblem in question also qualified as original artistic work, protected under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Principle of Passing Off: The Court emphasized that even in the absence of identical marks, if one party misrepresents their goods as that of another, it constitutes actionable passing off.

Conclusion

The judgment in H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Vijaypal Dhayal (Red Rose Industries) is a significant win not just for Harley-Davidson, but for all businesses who rely on strong brand identities and legal protection of their IP rights in India. It reflects the judiciary’s increasing awareness and proactiveness in addressing trademark violations in the digital era.

This decision sends out a clear signal: India's legal system will not tolerate Trademark infringement of global brands, and violators—regardless of their size or reach—will be held accountable under the law.