Inter IKEA Systems BV v. I KEY Home Studios LLP

Court: Hon’ble High Court of New Delhi

Citation: CS (COMM) 1143/2024

Date of Judgement: December 18, 2024

Judges: Mini Pushkarna, J

Facts: Inter IKEA Systems BV ("the Plaintiff") owns the well-known and internationally recognized trademark “IKEA,” first adopted by its founder in 1943. The mark has been in continuous use for home interior products like tiles, sanitary ware, plumbing materials, hardware, paints, glass, plywood, and other related goods. The colour scheme and trade dress as part of the plaintiff’s trademark are registered in several countries, including India. 

In November 2022, the Plaintiff came across five trademark applications submitted by I Key Home Studio LLP (“the Defendant”), for the mark “IKEY.” The Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Defendant, alleging that “IKEY” is deceptively similar to “IKEA” and demanded the withdrawal of the applications and cessation of use. The Defendant denied similarity and claimed honest adoption.

The Plaintiff opposed the applications before the Trade Marks Registry. The Defendant failed to file timely evidence and did not appear for hearings, leading to abandonment of these applications on April 16, 2024. In February 2024, the Plaintiff found two more applications by the Defendants for “IKEY” in other classes, which are also facing opposition proceedings.

In May 2024, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was using the Plaintiff's trademark in their own business. The website of the Defendant, “ikeyllp.com”, depicted home solution products, and its physical showroom had the name of IKEY prominently written without the tagline of the Plaintiff, i.e. “Home Studio”. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was selling products under price tags bearing the “IKEY” mark and sought a permanent injunction, damages, and suspension of the Defendant’s domain name. 

Issues: Whether the Defendant’s use of the mark “IKEY” amounts to infringement and passing off in relation to the Plaintiff’s registered and well-known trademark “IKEA”? 

Law: Sec. 2(1)(zg), Sec. 29, Sec. 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Judgement: The Delhi High Court recognised IKEA as a well-known trademark both in India and internationally. The Court noted that the Defendant was using the mark “IKEY” and “IKEY Home Studio” for goods and services identical or closely related to those offered by IKEA. The marks were visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to IKEA. In light of the same, this created a strong likelihood of confusion. This similarity, the Court held, was not accidental but deliberate, aimed at taking unfair advantage of IKEA’s goodwill and reputation. Such conduct not only infringed IKEA’s registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but also amounted to passing off, as it misled consumers into thinking the Defendants’ goods were connected to or approved by IKEA.

Considering IKEA’s rights and the clear risk of confusion among the public, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction stopping the Defendant, its partners, employees, agents, and anyone working with them from selling, advertising, importing, exporting, or dealing in goods or services under “IKEY,” “IKEY Home Studio,” or any other similar mark. The injunction also covered the use of the domain name “ikeyllp.com.” The Court suspended the domain because it was being used to promote and carry out the infringing activities online, which could reach a large number of consumers and cause more harm to IKEA’s brand.

The Court also ordered the domain registrar to keep “ikeyllp.com” suspended during the case and to share the details of the person who registered it.

Conclusion: The decision is significant not merely because IKEA took early steps to assert its rights, but because the Court maintained how Indian trademark law treats imitation of a well-known mark, particularly in the absence of a credible defence or engagement from the defendant. Read in light of Indian and comparative jurisprudence on well-known marks, the decision highlights the judiciary’s consistent willingness to prevent consumer confusion where a later entrant adopts a mark that is conceptually, visually, and commercially proximate to an established brand. The focus on balance of convenience, voluntary imitation, and likelihood of association used by the Court places the decision in a much-prolonged chain of precedents that protect the uniqueness and financial worth of famous trademarks. Rather than offering strategic guidance to rights-holders, the case illustrates how statutory protections under the Trade Marks Act and the common law doctrine of passing off operate in practice to preserve goodwill and prevent unfair market advantage.