Delhi HC Restrains South African Law Firm From Using Trademark Similar to Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP

The Court's decision follows a lawsuit filed by Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP against Singh and Singh Attorneys, asserting trademark infringement.

A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula highlighted the striking similarities between the names, domains, social media accounts, and primary logos of the two firms, indicating identical usage for similar services, and targeting the same consumer base. The Court ordered, “Till the next date of hearing, Defendants No. 1 and 2 or anybody acting on their behalf are restrained from using in India the impugned marks “Singh and Singh,” “Singh & Singh,” “singhlaw,” “singhandsingh,” “ ,” and “ ” or any other trademark/ trade name/ service name/ trading style, which is either identical to, or deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ marks/ names/ logos “Singh & Singh,” “Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP”, “Singh and Singh,” “http://www.singhandsingh.com/,” “singhlaw,” “singhandsingh.com,” “Singh & Singh Advocates,” “Singh & Singh Attorneys” or any other derivatives thereof so as to result in infringement and passing off of Plaintiffs’ trademarks.”

Advocate Tanmaya Mehta appeared for the Plaintiffs and Advocate Aditya Gupta appeared for the Defendants.

The plaintiff's argument emphasized their global outreach, including a significant presence in South Africa, serving major multinational corporations. It was contended that the defendants' promotion of "Singh and Singh Attorneys" in India could mislead clients into assuming an association with the plaintiff.

The Court noted, “Therefore, there is a strong possibility of confusion amongst the foreign clients/law firms relating to the two marks, which are predominantly identical. There is a strong likelihood that they would be led to believe that Defendants’ “Singh and Singh” is another branch or an associate office of Plaintiff’s “Singh & Singh.” Thus, the use of impugned marks, that are identical or deceptively similar to the trademarks of the Plaintiffs, and their domain name “singhlaw.co.za” is likely to cause confusion to the clients located in India as well as South Africa, where Plaintiff No. 1 has a formidable presence.”

Ultimately, after careful consideration of the presented evidence and legal arguments, the Court sided with Singh and Singh Law Firm LLP, granting the injunction to safeguard their trademarks and prevent potential confusion among consumers.

The order extends to blocking access to the defendants' website in India, with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) entrusted to enforce this measure.

Cause Title: Singh And Singh Law Firm LLP & Anr. v. Singh And Singh Attorneys & Ors.

Appearance:

Plaintiffs: Advocates Tanmaya Mehta and Krishnagopal Abhay

Defendants: Advocates Aditya Gupta and Mr. Sauhard Alung