By Lucy Rana and Huda Jafri
Introduction
When a brand as well-known as WIPRO finds its mark being misused that courtroom becomes a stage for protecting more than just a name; it’s about safeguarding decades of goodwill and public trust. In a significant step towards fortifying brand protection in India, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently declared “WIPRO” as a well-known trademark in the case of WIPRO Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivam Udhyog & Anr[1]. This ruling adds the home-grown company to the elite list of Indian brands such as “JIO”[2], “AMUL”[3] and “TAJ”[4] that have earned judicial recognition for their unparalleled reputation and consumer association.
The case arose when Shivam Udhyog (hereinafter as “Defendant”), attempted to register the mark “SHIVAM UDHYOG WIPRO WIRE MESH” in Class 06. WIPRO (hereinafter as “Plaintiff”), opposing this, sought not only an injunction but also an acknowledgment from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court of its mark’s well-known status under the Trademarks Act 1999 (hereinafter as “The Act”), which was granted after the Hon’ble Court examined WIPRO’s cross-class recognition, decades of use, and substantial financial records.
This judgment is more than a win for WIPRO Conglomerate as it reinforces the growing recognition of brand reputation as a distinct form of intellectual property. By granting well-known status the Court affirmed that famous trademarks deserve protection not merely within their product category but across all classes, safeguarding them from dilution and false association. The decision reflects a maturing Indian trademark regime that values not just legal ownership, but also public perception, trust and goodwill as integral elements of brand identity.
Facts of the Case:
Plaintiff, a renowned Indian Company discovered that the Defendant has applied for a registration of trademark “SHIVAM UDHYOG WIPRO WIRE MESH” in class 6[5], covering goods such as metal wires, metal alloys, etc.
The Defendant upon receiving notice, withdrew their trademark application and provided an undertaking not to use the “WIPRO” mark or any other similar mark. The Plaintiffs in turn, waived its claim for damages and limited its request for a declaration of Plaintiff’s trademark “WIPRO” as a well-known mark under the Act.
Key Issue:
- Whether the trademark “WIPRO” qualifies to be declared as a well-known trademark under the Act?
Judicial Analysis and Key Findings:
Hon’ble Justice Tejas Karia undertook a detailed evaluation of the evidence placed on record by WIPRO, and the Court’s findings may be summarized under the following heads:
- Long Standing and Continuous Use:
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that the Plaintiff has used its mark since 1977. The longevity and uninterrupted use of across diverse sectors have established a deep-rooted association with the Plaintiff’s business. - Reputational and Commercial Strength:The Plaintiff submitted extensive documentary evidence including:
- Cumulative turnover of about 607,750 million from FY 1994–95 till FY 2023–24.
- A total of 88,000 million of promotional expenditure since FY 1994 till FY 2023–24, of which 7,020 million was spent in FY 2023–24 alone.[6]
List of trademark registrations over “WIPRO” and “WIPRO” formative trademarks, reproduced herein under:
TIMELINE OF EVENTS S. No Trademark Registration Number Classes Date of Application
1. 
563300 11 12.06.1991 2. 
3513296 11 03.23.2017 3. 
3602660 9, 11 07.31.2017 4. 1127258 11 08.19.2002 5. 
758722 11 07.01.1997 6. Wipro Driving Big Ideas 2170986 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 29, 30, 35, 42 07.06.2011 7. 
784728 20 01.02.1998 8. 
784667 20 01.02.1998 9. 784675 20 01.02.1998 10. 
3513297 20 03.23.2017 11. WIPRO 1749210 20 10.30.2008 12. WIPRO3D 3768376 7, 9, 37, 40, 42 03.02.2018 - Association and Exclusivity:
The Court found that the mark “WIPRO” is inherently distinctive in nature, such that the public exclusively associates with the plaintiff. The degree of recognition is so strong that any use of another entity, even for unrelated goods would likely mislead consumers, reliance can be placed on the case of Red Bull AG v. C. Eswari and Ors[7], wherein this Hon’ble court held that the scale of operations demonstrated that the double bull trademark and the single bull trade mark enjoy strong public recognition. - Cross-Class Protection:
Although Defendant’s goods belong to a different class, the court emphasized that well-known trademarks enjoy cross-class protection. It explained that such marks transcend product categories and are shielded from dilution, unfair advantage, or false association. - Judicial Declaration of Well-Known Status:
After applying the criteria under section 11(6)[8], the Court concluded that “WIPRO” fulfills all necessary conditions which includes public recognition, duration and extent of use, and promotional investments and therefore deserves to be formally declared as a well-known trademark.
Conclusion
The decision in WIPRO Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v Shivam Udhyog & Anr., marks another milestone in the steady evolution of Indian trademark jurisprudence. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s recognition of “WIPRO” as a well-known trademark not only safeguards the company’s brand identity but also reinforces the broader principle that reputation, goodwill and consumer trust deserve the highest level of legal protection.
In recent years, there has been a notable trend in the Indian Courts of granting judicial recognition to marks as “well-known”, including brands like “BURGERKING”[9], “NEWBALANCE / NB”[10] and “BETNESOL”[11]. This judicial initiative reflects a progressive and proactive approach towards strengthening intellectual property enforcement in India. By taking the lead in acknowledging marks as well-know, the Court has made it easier for brand owners to secure cross, class protection without being limited to lengthy registry proceedings.
This development is particularly significant in today’s marketplace, where brand reputation extends far beyond specific products or sectors. The Court’s consistent stance sends a clear message that the Indian judiciary values brand equity as public trust, one that deserves protection from dilution, misuse or deceptive association.
[1] CS(COMM) 945/2025.
[2] Reliance Industries Limited v. Asif Ahmed, IA (l) No. 28031 of 2025.
[3] Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. D.N. Bahri Trading, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2550.
[4] Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. v. Gaurav Roy Bhatt, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1643.
[5] THE FOURTH SCHEDULE, Classification of goods– Name of the classes.
[6] CS(COMM) 945/2025.
[7] 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13145.
[8] Trademarks Act,1999
[9] Burger King Company LLC v. Virendra Kumar Gupta and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7735.
[10] New Balance Athletics Inc. v. New Balance Immigration Private Limited 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7009
[11] Glaxo Group Limited. And Anr. v. Manoj Kumar Jain and Ors. [2023 SCC OnLine Del 5525]