Madras High Court Restrains Former MRF Dealer From Continued Use Of Trademarks After Termination Of Dealership
Introduction
The Madras High Court has granted ad interim injunction in favour of MRF Limited restraining two Delhi-based entities from using its trademarks in relation to their business activities. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order in a suit alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off against Conveyo Belt Centre and Shri Ram Machinery.
Factual Background
MRF alleged that it had terminated its dealership arrangement with Conveyo Belt Centre in 2016. It further stated that it discontinued the business of manufacturing and selling conveyor belts in 2019. According to MRF, despite issuance of a cease-and-desist notice, initiation of pre-suit mediation proceedings, and a written undertaking dated 7 November 2025 by Conveyo Belt Centre agreeing not to use MRF’s trademarks, the defendants continued displaying MRF’s marks at trade exhibitions and stalls. MRF contended that such continued use amounted to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Procedural Background
MRF instituted a suit before the Madras High Court seeking injunctive relief against the defendants. The matter came before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy for consideration of interim relief pending adjudication of the suit.
Issues
1. Whether the defendants’ continued use of MRF’s trademarks after termination of dealership amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
2. Whether interim injunction ought to be granted restraining use of the trademarks.
3. Whether the defendants could continue selling remaining stock bearing the MRF mark.
Contentions of the Parties
MRF argued that the dealership arrangement with Conveyo Belt Centre had already been terminated in 2016.
It further submitted that despite a written undertaking not to use MRF’s marks, the defendants continued displaying the trademarks at trade exhibitions and stalls, thereby misleading consumers and infringing MRF’s intellectual property rights. MRF contended that such acts warranted immediate injunctive relief.
The detailed submissions of the defendants were not recorded in the interim order. However, the Court considered the issue of sale of remaining stock bearing the MRF mark.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court observed that MRF had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim protection. The Court took note of the dealership termination, the cease-and-desist communications, the written undertaking executed by Conveyo Belt Centre, and the allegation that the defendants nevertheless continued using MRF’s trademarks at exhibitions.
In view of these circumstances, the Court found it appropriate to restrain the defendants from further use of MRF’s marks in relation to their business activities pending further proceedings. At the same time, the Court balanced equities by clarifying that the injunction would not prevent the defendants from selling any remaining stock of conveyor belts bearing MRF’s mark, provided such goods were genuine products.
Decision
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Conveyo Belt Centre and Shri Ram Machinery from using MRF’s trademarks in relation to their business until the next date of hearing. The Court clarified that the order would not prevent sale of remaining genuine stock bearing the MRF mark. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 22 June 2026.
In this case the appellant was represented by Advocate M.S. Bharath.