By Vikrant Rana and Ananyaa Banerjee
Nintendo Co. Ltd. v. Nintendo India Private Limited & Ors. | CS (COMM) 747/2026 | High Court of Delhi | Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh | Order: July 29, 2026
The High Court of Delhi has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Nintendo Co. Ltd. (‘Plaintiff’), restraining an entity incorporated in India under the name ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ (‘Defendant No. 1’), its directors, and all others acting on their behalf, from using the trade name ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ and/or the mark NINTENDO in any manner amounting to infringement. The Order, passed by Hon’ble Justice Ms.Jyoti Singh on July 29, 2026, reaffirms the principle that a registered trademark with established reputation under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) can be enforced against a deceptively similar corporate/trade name even where the infringer’s business is entirely unrelated to the goods or services for which the mark is registered.
Background of the Case
Nintendo Co. Ltd., founded in 1889 by Fusajiro Yamauchi in Kyoto, Japan, is a globally recognised leader in interactive entertainment, video games, and gaming consoles. Originally established as a manufacturer of Japanese playing cards, the Plaintiff progressively diversified into electronic entertainment, launching iconic products such as Game Boy, the Nintendo Entertainment System, Nintendo DS, Wii, Nintendo Switch, and most recently Nintendo Switch 2 (2025), which sold over 3.5 million units within 4 days of release. The Plaintiff operates through numerous subsidiaries worldwide, and holds a market capitalisation of approximately USD 67 billion, placing it among the top 5 global video game companies by revenue.
The mark/trade name NINTENDO, along with its Japanese script rendition (任天堂), is the Plaintiff’s house mark and forms the most prominent part of its corporate and brand identity. The Plaintiff holds registrations for the NINTENDO word and device marks across multiple classes in India, as early as 1983, and enjoys ‘defensive mark’ status for certain formative marks in Japan — a status reserved for exceptionally well-known marks, which extends protection even to dissimilar goods and services.
In November 2025, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant No. 1, a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Patna, with Defendants No. 2 and 3 as its directors and Defendant No. 4 as an unidentified ‘Ashok Kumar’/John Doe defendant, had been incorporated under the name ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’, engaged in the real estate business of acquiring, managing, and dealing in land and other immovable property. Investigations revealed that Defendant No. 1 had no official website, no listing on trade directories or e-commerce platforms, and had filed no trademark application.
A cease-and-desist notice issued by the Plaintiff on February 17, 2026 elicited no response, compelling the Plaintiff to institute the present suit along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction at the Delhi High Court.
Contentions of the Plaintiff
- The impugned trade name ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ wholly subsumes the Plaintiff’s mark NINTENDO, resulting in deceptive similarity with Plaintiff’s own trade name, Nintendo Co. Ltd.
- NINTENDO is a coined and fanciful term entitled to the highest degree of statutory protection; there could be no honest justification for a third party’s adoption of an identical word as a corporate name.
- The Plaintiff’s mark satisfies the threshold of reputation in India under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, evidenced by global and Indian revenues, advertising, industry rankings, etc., entitling the Plaintiff to restrain use of a confusingly similar trade name even for entirely dissimilar goods/services, i.e., real estate.
- Reliance was placed on Bloomberg Finance LP v. Prafull Saklecha & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4159 and Pepsico, Inc. & Anr. v. Jagpin Breweries Limited & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2542, for the proposition that a registered proprietor satisfying the Section 29(4) reputation threshold can restrain use of its mark as part of a corporate name even where the infringer operates in an unrelated business.
Notably, Defendant No. 3 responded prior to the hearing, stating in writing that the impugned name had never been used for conducting any business and that she had no intention to use it, and expressed willingness to suffer a decree of permanent injunction. This communication was placed on record before the Hon’ble Court.
AFindings of the Court
The Hon’ble Court held that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction, with the balance of convenience favouring the Plaintiff and the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an interim relief. In arriving at this conclusion, the Hon’ble Court noted:
- NINTENDO is a coined term used continuously by the Plaintiff since 1889, with the word mark registered in India in Class 28 since 1983, and the Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill have grown substantially both internationally and in India.
- Defendants No. 1–3 had adopted a nearly identical/deceptively similar name for a real estate business, creating every likelihood of confusion amongst members of the public and trade despite the disparate nature of the businesses involved.
- The Plaintiff had prima facie established the reputation threshold under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, and following Bloomberg Finance LP, a registered proprietor meeting this threshold can restrain use of its mark as part of a corporate name even for goods/services outside its registration, without the mark needing to be a declared ‘well-known mark’ under Section 2(1)(zg) — a distinction affirmed by the Madras High Court in Ashok Leyland Limited v. Blue Hill Logistics Pvt. Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6126, and followed by the Delhi High Court in Pepsico, Inc.
- The adoption of the impugned name was prima facie intended to encash on the Plaintiff’s goodwill and to misrepresent an affiliation or nexus with the Plaintiff that did not exist, resulting in irreparable loss and injury to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court restrained Defendants No. 1–3, Defendant No. 4 (John Doe), and all others acting on their behalf from using the trade name ‘Nintendo India Private Limited’ and/or the mark NINTENDO in any manner amounting to infringement, till the next date of hearing.
AAnalysis of the Case
This Order is a useful reaffirmation of the reach of Section 29(4) of the 1999 Act, which does not require a Plaintiff’s mark to be judicially declared ‘well-known’ or recorded in the list of well-known marks before it can be enforced against dissimilar goods or services, that is, reputation in India, coupled with dishonest adoption, suffices. The case is also a reminder that incorporating a company under the Companies Act with a name identical or deceptively similar to a well-established trademark offers no shield against an infringement action; the Registrar of Companies’ approval of a name is not a defence to trademark infringement or passing off.
For rights holders, the Order underscores the importance of monitoring corporate name registrations, not merely trademark applications, across ROC records in India, given that squatting or opportunistic adoption of famous marks as company names (irrespective of the business sector) continues to be a recurring enforcement challenge, particularly for globally renowned but historically under-enforced marks in India or brands that have not ventured into the Indian markets.
Key Takeaways for IP Right Holders
- Reputation, not just ‘well-known’ status, is enough: Section 29(4) does not require a mark to be judicially declared ‘well-known’ or recorded in the list of well-known marks under Section 2(1)(zg). Demonstrating reputation in India, through revenue figures, advertising spending, rankings, and media coverage etc., can suffice to prove the well-known eligibility in order to restrain adoption and use on entirely dissimilar goods/services.
- Monitor ROC filings, not just the Trade Marks Register: Infringers may incorporate companies bearing a famous mark as part of the corporate name without ever filing a trademark application. Periodic searches of Registrar of Companies records across jurisdictions (not only where a rights holder is active) can surface such adoptions for an early action before the misuse expands.
- Unrelated business sectors offer no safe harbour: A Defendant’s business being wholly unconnected to the rights holder’s goods/services (here, real estate versus gaming) is not a defence where the mark is coined/fanciful and enjoys established fame — dilution and misrepresentation of affiliation are independently actionable.
- Cease-and-desist notices build the record for urgent relief: Sending a notice before litigation, even where it draws no response, helps establish wilful infringement and supports the case for ex-parte ad-interim relief.
- Defensive/special registrations strengthen the record: Evidence of defensive mark status or equivalent special protection in other jurisdictions (here, Japan) can support the reputation and fame analysis before Indian courts, even though it does not by itself confer Indian statutory rights.
- Act promptly once identified: The gap between discovery (November 2025), the cease-and-desist notice (February 2026), and the suit/injunction application preserved the rights holder’s position for interim relief; unexplained delay can weaken the case for urgency and ex-parte relief in future matters.