Mumbai: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Registrar of Trademarks on a petition filed by Hero MotoCorp challenging the registration of the “MotorHunk” trademark.
The matter was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh, who issued notice to Nitin Khanna, founder of the automobile accessories platform MotorHunk, and listed the case for further hearing on May 11.
Hero MotoCorp has argued that the “MotorHunk” trademark is deceptively similar to its earlier registered trademark “Hunk,” which the company had used for one of its motorcycle models. According to the company, the similarity between the two marks could lead to confusion among consumers and within the trade regarding the source or association of the products.
The company also submitted that the term “motor” is generic and widely used in the automobile industry, and therefore does not sufficiently differentiate the two marks. It maintained that the word “hunk” forms the distinctive component of both marks, making them effectively identical in commercial impression.
Hero MotoCorp further alleged that the disputed trademark may have been adopted in a way that could benefit from the reputation and goodwill built around its “Hunk” brand.
However, counsel appearing for Khanna argued that trademarks must be evaluated as a whole rather than by isolating individual elements. According to the defence, the MotorHunk mark is registered as an artistic device mark, while Hero MotoCorp’s mark is a word mark, making the two structurally different.
Khanna’s counsel also contended that Hero MotoCorp had discontinued the “Hunk” motorcycle model in 2017, and therefore could not claim ongoing goodwill or trade reputation linked to the brand.
The court was also informed that the Trademarks Registry had previously reviewed the competing marks and concluded that they were visually and phonetically distinct. The registry had found no evidence suggesting dishonest adoption or copying of the mark and held that the two trademarks were sufficiently different to avoid confusion among consumers.
The case will now proceed after the Registrar of Trademarks files its response before the court.
