Delhi High Court rejects Relaxo's trademark infringement plea against Myntra's HRX


Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

The High Court rejected Relaxo's claim that the X mark used by HRX appears deceptively similar to the mark X used by Relaxo owned Sparx brand of shoes.

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a plea filed by leading footwear manufacturer Relaxo seeking to restrain Myntra owned HRX from using the mark X in its trademark for selling footwear.

In an order passed on May 3, Justice Anish Dayal rejected the interim injunction application filed by Relaxo and rejected its claim that that X used by HRX appears deceptively similar to the mark X used by Relaxo owned Sparx brand of footwear.

The Court said that it cannot be said that HRX has dishonestly adopted the plaintiff's ‘X’ device mark.

“It would have been a different situation if both the plaintiff and the defendants were using the ‘X’ device marks purely and simply on their shoes and the packaging without their principal brand names or otherwise listing them as such on online sites without the principal brand names, which is not the case herein. Besides the defendants having been in the market now since 2013 i.e. more than a decade, the balance of convenience also leans in their favour,” the Court noted.

It further said that there were already various “X” trademarks which have co-existed with Relaxo in the market and, therefore, Relaxo cannot claim any exclusive right over the same.

“In view of the above discussion, this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC is dismissed. It is made clear that these observations are prima facie at this stage since the trial is yet to commence,” Justice Dayal concluded.

Relaxo filed the trademark infringement suit against the XS Brands Consultancy Private Limited (the company which owns HRX) and others for trademark infringement.

It sought to restrain the rival sneakers maker from using the X marks with HRX products. It was Relaxo’s case that it is the registered proprietor of the mark X and HRX’s X mark is deceptively similar to it.

However, the defendants argued that Relaxo does not have any exclusive right over the alphabet X and at the most, it can claim a right on the specific artistic work which, in any case, is not similar to HRX’s X.

The suit was filed when actor Hrithik Roshan was also a shareholder in HRX. Hence, he was also initially a respondent to the suit.

Subsequently, Roshan had exited as shareholder though he continued as a brand ambassador.

The defendant argued that the HRX mark is derived from the first letters of Hrithik Roshan and the X in its mark stands for ‘Xtreme’.

The Court considered the case and rejected the interim injunction application filed by Relaxo.

Case Title: Relaxo Footwears Limited v XS Brands Consultancy Private Limited & Ors 2024 Delhi HC