Panasonic wins trademark case: Delhi High Court junks ‘religious inspiration’ argument for ‘PONTA’ brand

In 2025, Japanese multinational Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a lawsuit against a New Delhi-based manufacturer of electrical accessories, seeking cancellation of the latter’s ‘PONTA’ trademark on the grounds that it was “deceptively similar” to Panasonic’s ‘PENTA’ trademark.

On June 5 this year, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Panasonic while agreeing that there was “glaring similarity” in the two marks, especially given that “both parties manufacture products which are identical and fall in the same class of goods”.

It directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the ‘PONTA’ trademark from its registry.

A curious detail in the case, however, stood out: M/s India Electrical Industries’ justification for PONTA.

The mark’s proprietor, Siddharth Vij, had told the HC that it is a “sincere expression of faith and reverence” intrinsically linked to his “spiritual heritage”.

Claiming that he and his family members are “devout followers of the Sikh faith”, Vij had argued that the name was derived by drawing “inspiration from the sacred and revered Gurudwara Shri Paonta Sahib.”

On this, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in his order observed that Vij had “tendered a brilliant and most innovative storyline”.

PENTA vs PONTA

Story continues below this ad

Notably, Panasonic had registered the trademark for ‘PENTA’ in 1989 for  electrical fittings products and reported a sales turnover of over Rs 913 crore in the 2023-24 financial year from goods sold under the ‘PENTA’ mark.

India Electricals Industries, on the other hand, commenced operations in 2019-20. It applied for the registration of the ‘PONTA’ mark in March 2019 on a “proposed-to-be-used” basis.

While the trademarks registry had raised objections in May 2019, citing the similarity with Panasonic’s ‘PENTA’, it had finally registered the mark in February 2021.

What the judge said

Justice Gedela, in his ruling, observed, “The respondent had, for the first time in the present proceedings, tendered a brilliant and most innovative storyline… One, that (Vij) is a deeply religious person and ardent follower of Sikh religion and traditions and, in the course of such deeply entrenched thoughts, was motivated and borrowed the name ‘PONTA’ from the religious shrine Gurudwara ‘SHRI PAONTA SAHIB’.”

Story continues below this ad

The only thing Viij did, the court said, was to delete/omit the letter ‘A’ from the name of the shrine and coin the word ‘PONTA’.

“… Two, that the word ‘PONTA’ is available in many languages over the world carrying varied meanings, and thus… was adopted, is arbitrary as it has no relation to the products manufactured.”

Rejecting Vij’s justification for the choice of the mark, the court noted that “though (it) seems attractive, it is unpersuasive and unmerited… for the reason that no such explanation or justification was tendered to the Trademarks Registry while submitting its response and, therefore, there was no occasion for the Registry to have considered or appreciated any such explanation before it registered the mark ‘PONTA’…”

Court redflags ‘AI research’

The court also deprecated unauthenticated and unverified AI tool-generated research, noting, “(Vij) extensively relied upon the meaning and references to the word ‘PONTA’ based on research generated by Artificial Intelligence Tools, without any authentication or corroborative evidence of existence of such word in foreign languages. This court cannot surely rely upon such unauthenticated and unverified material.”

Story continues below this ad

The court further reasoned, “What strikes the eye at first glance is the glaring similarity, rather identicalness, in both marks. Merely by replacing ‘E’ with the letter ‘O’ does not create any distinction at all. Moreover, if one were to carefully observe the device mark of (Vij), the design built into the letter ‘O’ actually gives an impression as if it is ‘E’ and not ‘O’. In the opinion of this court, the mark ‘PONTA’… is visually, structurally and conceptually, if not identical, clearly deceptively similar (to PENTA)…”

“The marks being deceptively similar, products being identical, trade circles and distribution channels and retailers being common, an unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely to get confused or deceived into purchasing goods of (Vij), believing them to be those of the petitioner or associated with it,” the court held.

Not the first such case

Such post facto justification to reflect bonafide use of purportedly deceptively similar trademarks is not uncommon.

In 2024, the Delhi HC was dealing with a trademark infringement suit by sports and apparel wear company Adidas AG against parties who were selling goods branded as ‘ADIDAS’.

Story continues below this ad

The defendants had contended that the adoption of the trademark was “bonafide and honest”, adding that their rationale for choosing a mark identical to that of the plaintiff was “rooted in personal affection”.

It was submitted that they chose the name because one of the proprietors of the infringing companies “held deep admiration for his elder sister, addressed as ‘ADI’ in the Sindhi community”.

It was submitted, “This admiration was so profound that he (the proprietor) was commonly described as her devotee (‘Das’ in Sindhi). Consequently, the term ‘ADIDAS’ (devotee of elder sister) was conceived, combining ‘ADI’ and ‘DAS’ to reflect this familial devotion.”