Decided on: 27/10/2026
Coram: Justice Vikas Mahajan
Citation: CS (COMM) 156/2025
Introduction
Wipro has secured another trademark victory before the Delhi High Court, this time against a lighting business operating as “VEEPRO”. In Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Veepro Lights and Decor, Justice Vikas Mahajan decreed the suit without a trial, since the defendant never came forward to contest it. The decree was passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with ₹4 lakh as damages and costs.
Background
Wipro sued Veepro Lights and Decor (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) over the use of the brand name “VEEPRO” (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Trademark”), arguing that the same is visually and phonetically highly similar to its registered and well-known trademark “WIPRO”, which is in use since at least as early as 1977 through its predecessor-in-interest. Wipro relied upon a number of registrations in inter alia Classes 9 and 11, the earliest listed being Registration No. 563300 for the trademark that was filed on December 6, 1991.
Wipro put on record that the sale figures under their claimed mark for FY 2023-24 were ₹5,055.9 crore and advertising spend for the year under review was ₹702.2 crore. Wipro also apprised the Court of its own order dated October 06, 2025 in the case of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Shivam Udhyog & Anr[1]., wherein it was held that “WIPRO” is a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Defendant, Veepro, dealing in lighting and interior solutions was located by Wipro on February 14, 2025, when it came across the website <www.veeproled.com>, where “VEEPRO” was being used prominently. The suit followed, and on February 21, 2025 the Court restrained the Defendant from dealing in any goods or services under the Impugned Trademark or anything other deceptively similar trademark. A Local Commissioner was appointed the same day and his report is on record. The injunction was extended from time to time and remains in force.
Summons were served on March 28, 2025, however the Defendant did not appear. Accordingly, the Joint Registrar closed its right to file a written statement on September 22, 2025, and on October 06, 2026 the suit was proceeded against ex parte. Wipro then moved I.A. 28116/2026 under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for a judgment and decree. The question was simple enough: with no written statement and no appearance, could the Court decree the suit on the plaint alone?
Judgement
The Court answered yes. The defendant had not appeared and had not filed a written statement, so what Wipro had pleaded stood uncontested. Wipro is the registered proprietor of the trademark “WIPRO” in several forms, and the mark has been declared well-known, which entitles it the highest level of statutory as well as common law protection.
Wipro relied on three earlier decisions of coordinate benches: Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v. Wow Chinese[2], Castrol Limited v. Vivek Sen[3], and Disney Enterprises I.N.C. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors[4]. In Wow Momo the suit was decreed with ₹2 lakh costs; in Castrol, a Local Commissioner had seized infringing goods and ₹7 lakh was awarded. The Court also reproduced a passage from Disney, where it was held that if the defendant is ex parte and the material on record is enough to allow the claim, there is no point in directing ex parte evidence, which would mostly repeat the plaint. Applying the reasoning of all three judgements, the Court found Wipro entitled to a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
On costs, Wipro said it had paid ₹2 lakh as court fee and another ₹2 lakh as the Local Commissioner’s fee, and that it was not pressing for any damages beyond these costs. The suit was therefore decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d), with ₹4 lakh as damages and costs. The next date before the Joint Registrar, December 02, 2026, was cancelled.
Conclusion
The judgment is a short one, but its message is clear. A defendant who is served and then stays away from a trademark suit can lose it on the plaint alone, and the Delhi High Court is willing to use Order VIII Rule 10 for this without waiting for ex parte evidence.
The costs order is worth a look as well. The ₹4 lakh matches what Wipro actually spent on court fee and the Local Commissioner, which fits with how the earlier cases were handled. For brand owners, the practical point is that a quick interim injunction and a Local Commissioner’s report give the Court enough to decide the matter early, if the other side does not show up.
- CS (COMM) 945/2025.
- 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9162.
- CS (COMM) 32/2024.
- 2014 SCC OnLine Del 781.