U.S. GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL V. DEMING CERTIFICATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED 2025:DHC:11865:

DATE: 24/12/2025

COURT: High Court of Delhi

BENCH: Justice Tejas Karia

FACTS:

The plaintiff, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), filed a suit against the defendant for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off in relation to green building certification services. The plaintiff holds registered trademarks for various "USGBC" marks, including logos featuring oak leaves in circular designs, registered in classes 41 and 42, with renewals up to 2033. It has certified numerous projects in India since 2003, such as buildings in Hyderabad, Gurgaon, Kolkata, New Delhi, Pune, and Chennai, and promotes its services via its website (www.usgbc.org) and social media. The defendant adopted deceptively similar marks, including "IGBC" and "International Green Building Council" logos with similar circular and oak leaf elements, applied for registration in class 42 in 2021, and copied content from the plaintiff's website, leading to confusion among consumers, including shared clients like Indian Railways.

Procedurally, summons were issued on September 27, 2022, with an interim injunction restraining the defendant's use of the marks and domain (www.internationalgbc.org). The defendant filed a written statement on November 21, 2022, but it remained under objections due to defects, and despite multiple court directions and extensions, the defendant failed to rectify it or file replies to applications, including contempt proceedings for violating the injunction. The plaintiff filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC for disobedience and the present one under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC for judgment due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement within 120 days (lapsing on February 14, 2023). The defendant's managing director gave undertakings to cease operations under the infringing marks, but delays persisted, leading to costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on May 7, 2025, for dilatory tactics.

ISSUES:

The primary issues were whether the defendant's adoption of the IGBC marks and logos constituted trademark infringement, copyright violation in website content, and passing off by imitating the plaintiff's USGBC marks for identical green building certification services; and whether the court should pronounce judgment under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC due to the defendant's failure to file a timely written statement and repeated non-compliance with court directions, thereby deeming the plaintiff's averments admitted.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of IGBC marks, logos, and similar trademarks or domain names; ordering delivery-up of infringing materials; directing rendition of accounts and payment of profits; and imposing exemplary damages of Rs.10 lakh along with actual costs recoverable from the defendant under relevant rules.

The court reasoned that the defendant's failure to file a written statement within the 120-day statutory period, despite summons served on October 15, 2022, and repeated opportunities, constituted dilatory tactics and non-compliance, allowing invocation of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC to pronounce judgment without trial, as the plaintiff's unrebutted averments were deemed admitted. Drawing from Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5961), the court emphasized that this provision expedites justice against defendants employing delays, while verifying the plaint's contents as unimpeachable. The procedural history, including unremoved objections since November 2022, ignored directions for replies and affidavits, and violations of the September 27, 2022 injunction (e.g., continued social media use and new company incorporation), demonstrated the defendant's lackadaisical approach, justifying closure of defenses and imposition of costs.

Furthermore, on the merits, the court found clear infringement and passing off, as the defendant's marks imitated dominant features of the plaintiff's registered USGBC trademarks, such as circular logos with central oak leaves and copied website content verbatim, constituting original literary work under the Copyright Act, 1957. This similarity, combined with identical services and overlapping clients like Indian Railways, created a likelihood of consumer confusion and enabled the defendant to ride on the plaintiff's established goodwill from extensive use since 1996. The defendant's undertaking via affidavit to cease operations under IGBC reinforced the need for permanent injunctions, while its willful disobedience and tactics warranted exemplary damages of Rs.10 lakh to compensate the plaintiff's losses from multiple contempt applications and proceedings, alongside actual costs under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Delhi High Court rules.

ANALYSIS:

The Delhi High Court's decision in U.S. Green Building Council v. Deming Certification Services Private Limited (2025:DHC:11865) exemplifies the robust enforcement of intellectual property rights in commercial suits, particularly through procedural mechanisms like Order VIII Rule 10 CPC. By decreeing the suit due to the defendant's persistent failure to file a written statement despite numerous opportunities and interim undertakings to cease infringing activities, the court deterred dilatory tactics that prolong litigation. The imposition of Rs.10 lakh exemplary damages, alongside permanent injunctions and costs, underscores a punitive approach to willful disobedience and infringement, aligning with precedents emphasizing expeditious justice while ensuring the plaint's claims here, trademark similarity, verbatim copyright copying, and passing off are unimpeachable on record.

This ruling highlights the vulnerability of copycat entities attempting to leverage established global brands like USGBC in niche sectors such as green building certification. The visual and textual similarities, circular logos with central oak elements and near-identical website content combined with overlapping services, established clear deception likely to confuse consumers. Notably, the defendant's conduct, including continued use post-injunction and incorporation of an infringing-named company, justified escalated remedies beyond mere injunctions. The judgment reinforces trademark protection for foreign entities in India, promotes originality in sustainability services, and serves as a cautionary precedent against bad-faith defenses in IP disputes.