A trademark or brand is considered anything that helps a company separate its products and services from those of its competitors. This helps customers understand whom they are buying from, avoiding any kind of confusion or mix-up. This is the reason why most established brands fight tooth and nail to protect their trademarks or brands from any kind of infringement. The case between Yulu and Kinetic Green was exclusively reported by our sister publication, Autocar Professional.
- Yulu claims “Zulu” sounds too similar to their brand name
- Case currently under procession at Karnataka High Court
Here's what happened
The legal battle began in late January when Yulu Bikes filed a case with a city civil and sessions court, accusing Kinetic Green of infringing on its trademark with the launch of their "Zulu" branded e-scooters. The lawsuit is over Kinetic Green Energy’s use of their “Zulu” brand. Yulu Bikes argues that it is too similar to their own brand and may cause confusion among consumers.
Kinetic Green Energy in an emailed response said “ We represent a reputed business group of the country. Kinetic Green conducts its business responsibly and in a lawful manner. As far as this case is concerned, we have registered the “KINETIC GREEN ZULU” and “ZULU” trademarks with effect from September 26, 2022, and started using them only after obtaining registrations. We are extremely surprised at the developments. The matter is sub-judice and we have no further comments.” While the lower court denied the initial injunction request, it allowed Kinetic Green Energy to present their arguments. Unsatisfied with the development, Yulu Bikes went to appeal against the order in Karnataka High Court.
Fast tracking of the case
The Karnataka High Court in part ordered a temporary injunction on February 5, restraining Kinetic Green Energy from using, selling, and advertising with the trademark 'YULU' and associated trademarks, or in combination with other words and/or any mark similar or deceptively similar, including 'ZULU' and 'Kinetic Green Zulu'.
Faced with the court diktat, Kinetic Green Energy subsequently submitted that the interim order passed against them is "working great hardship," requesting the High Court to pre-pone the hearing date and allow them to file their objections sooner. Yulu's lawyers agreed to the expedited hearing schedule but emphasised their stance on maintaining the temporary injunction until a final decision is reached. The High Court, acting on the mutual consent of both parties, has thus directed the Commercial Court to reach a final decision on the interim applications by March 11, 2024.
SHAHKAR ABIDI
