Tesla Inc v Tesla Power India Pvt Ltd & Ors: Delhi HC clamps down on “TESLA POWER” batteries and EV plans 

Posted On - 26 December, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Introduction:

The Delhi High Court has granted a strong interim injunction in favour of Tesla Inc against Tesla Power India and related entities, restraining them from using “TESLA POWER”, “TESLA POWER USA”, the Tesla logos and any mark incorporating “TESLA” for EVs, lead acid batteries for automobiles, inverters and UPS. The Court treated this as a classic triple identity case: identical mark, overlapping product category, and similar consumer base. 

Facts and Background:

Tesla Inc and its Indian subsidiary sued Tesla Power India and others for trademark infringement and passing off, targeting the defendants’ use of “TESLA POWER”, “TESLA POWER USA” and related device marks and domains for batteries, inverters, UPS and proposed EV offerings. Tesla relied on its Indian registrations for the word mark “TESLA” in classes 12 and 37 (automobiles, structural parts, repair and maintenance), as well as device and logo registrations in class 9 covering inverters and related energy equipment. It placed extensive material on record on worldwide revenue, media coverage, website traffic from India, and the fame of its CEO to show transborder reputation and secondary meaning in India. 

The defendants argued that they honestly adopted “TESLA POWER” in 2020 inspired by Nikola Tesla (and later as an acronym for “The Energy Storage on Leased Assets”), use the mark for lead acid batteries and related products in class 9, and had built a large business network and turnover in India. They claimed Tesla has no Indian business in those goods, that “TESLA” is common to trade, and that there is a crowded field of Tesla marks worldwide. Earlier in the suit, the defendants had also given an undertaking not to manufacture or market EVs under “TESLA POWER” or any Tesla-formative brand. 

Key Issues Before the Court:

  1. Whether Tesla’s registrations and use of “TESLA” in India extend to batteries and inverters so as to cover the defendants’ goods and services? 
  1. Whether “TESLA POWER”/”TESLA POWER USA” and related device marks amount to infringement and passing off given the nature of goods, trade channels and consumer perception? 
  1. Whether the defendants could rely on alleged crowded use and third-party Tesla marks to deny Tesla exclusivity in the EV and battery space? 
  1. Whether delay in filing the suit and Tesla’s limited physical sales in India should defeat an interim injunction? 

Court’s Reasoning, Findings and Held:

The Court held that Tesla’s registrations in classes 12 and 9 cover EV batteries, inverters and related power equipment, and that the defendants’ lead acid batteries, inverters and UPS fall squarely within allied and cognate goods. With valid registrations on the record, the Court rejected arguments about “proposed to be used” filings, non-use in India, or Tesla’s primary focus on EVs. Tesla’s evidence of massive global revenues, Indian media coverage, website traffic and brand spillover established strong goodwill and transborder reputation, making it implausible that the defendants were unaware of Tesla especially since foreign registries had already cited Tesla’s marks against them. The adoption of TESLA POWER USA was viewed as prima facie dishonest, given the lack of any US operations but a branding strategy that implied American origin and a link to Tesla Inc. 

Confusion was considered inevitable as TESLA is the dominant element in both marks, “POWER” and “USA” add no distinctiveness, the goods target similar consumers, and actual confusion had already surfaced in Indian media and government notices. The Court applied initial interest confusion, holding that even early-stage diversion of consumer attention constitutes infringement. Defences of “common to trade” and third-party use were rejected because the defendants themselves sought registration over TESLA-formative marks, and cited third-party uses (like Nvidia’s TESLA) were unrelated to EVs or batteries in India. Given Tesla’s demonstrated goodwill, transborder reputation, evidence of actual confusion, and the defendants’ shifting explanations for adopting TESLA POWER, the Court found prima facie dishonesty, balance of convenience in Tesla’s favour, and irreparable harm likely. It therefore continued the defendants’ undertaking not to use TESLA for EVs and further restrained them from using TESLA / TESLA POWER / TESLA POWER USA or any similar mark for EVs, batteries, inverters or UPS across all channels pending trial. 

Key Takeaways:

In practical terms, the order does three big things. One, it reaffirms that a globally famous EV brand can enforce its mark in India against a domestic battery player even if its own India product footprint is still small, so long as transborder reputation and some uses are proven. Two, it treats EV batteries and inverters as structurally and commercially proximate to Tesla’s registered classes, shutting down attempts to hide behind class labels or alleged gaps in the register. Three, it sends a clear warning to Indian businesses trying to surf global brands: if you adopt a famous mark, add generic suffixes like “POWER” or “USA”, and then expand towards the same space, courts will treat that as dishonest and step in early with wide-ranging injunctions.