ZULU VS YULU

Abstract
The deposition summary pertains to a trademark dispute between YULU Bikes Pvt. Ltd.
and KINETIC GREEN Energy and Power Solutions Ltd. The case revolves around the
alleged infringement of YULU's registered trademark by KINETIC GREEN through the
launch of an electric bike named 'ZULU'. YULU Bikes, a MaaS provider, claims that the
'ZULU' mark is visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to their 'YULU' mark,
which could lead to confusion among consumers and harm their business. They have
sought an injunction to prevent KINETIC GREEN from using the 'ZULU' trademark.

KINETIC GREEN, however, denies the allegations, arguing that they have a valid
registration for their 'ZULU' and 'KINETIC GREEN ZULU' marks. They also claim that
their business is distinct from YULU's, as they focus on private ownership of electric
vehicles, while YULU operates a rental model. The court is currently considering whether
YULU has made a prima facie case for trademark infringement, and where the balance of
convenience lies.

The cross-examination focused on the alleged infringement of the 'YULU' trademark by

the defendant's use of the similar mark 'ZULU'. YULU argued that they have been using
the 'YULU' mark since 2017 and have built significant goodwill and reputation associated
with it. They claimed that the defendant's use of 'ZULU' is likely to cause confusion
among consumers and harm their business. The defendant, on the other hand, argued
that they have validly registered 'ZULU' and 'KINETIC GREEN ZULU' as their
trademarks and that their use does not infringe on the plaintiff's rights. They also
contended that their products are different from the plaintiff's and cater to a different
customer base, thus there is no likelihood of confusion.

Based on the deposition, it appears that YULU Bikes has a strong case for trademark
infringement. They have been using the 'YULU' trademark for a longer period, and the
'ZULU' trademark is phonetically and visually similar. However, the final decision will
depend on the court's interpretation of the evidence and the applicable law.

Overview
YULU Bikes Pvt. Ltd., a MaaS provider with a mobile application and domain name

Page 1 of 5
www.yulu.bike, alleges that KINETIC GREEN Energy and Power Solutions Ltd. has
infringed upon their registered trademark 'YULU', violating the Trademarks Act, 1999.
The plaintiff seeks an order of temporary injunction from the court of SRI.RAMAKANT
CHAVAN, as directed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. The plaintiff has also filed
a Commercial Miscellaneous petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay against the defendant and the Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai.

Key Topics
YULU Bikes Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 with CIN
U77210KA2017PTC105368, is in a legal dispute with KINETIC GREEN Energy and Power
Solutions Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The dispute, case number
Com.O.S.No.151/2024, involves YULU's trademark ‘YULU’. YULU, in partnership with
Bajaj Auto Ltd., provides Battery-as-a-Service (BaaS) and has launched a product named
'YULU Wynn'. The case is being heard in the Bengaluru Commercial Court by Judge
Sri.Ramakant Chavan, who is considering YULU's application for a temporary injunction
against KINETIC GREEN.

Injuries
Trademark Infringement
The plaintiff, YULU Bikes Pvt. Ltd., alleges that the defendant, KINETIC GREEN Energy
and Power Solutions Ltd., has infringed upon their registered trademark 'YULU' by
launching an electric bike named 'ZULU'. The plaintiff argues that the defendant's use of
a similar mark is likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm their business.

Trademark Registration
The plaintiff has registered trademarks for 'YULU' and associated marks, which have
been used to identify their products since 2017. The defendant registered their 'ZULU'
and 'KINETIC GREEN ZULU' marks in 2022.

Business Operations
The plaintiff operates in the shared electric mobility sector, providing services such as
bike rentals and battery swapping. The defendant is also in the electric mobility space,
manufacturing and selling electric vehicles.

Page 2 of 5
Trademark Similarity
The plaintiff argues that the defendant's 'ZULU' mark is visually, phonetically, and
conceptually similar to their 'YULU' mark, which could lead to confusion among
consumers. The plaintiff also alleges that the defendant's use of a similar mark is an
attempt to take advantage of the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill.

Defendant's Response
The defendant denies the allegations, arguing that they have a valid registration for their
'ZULU' and 'KINETIC GREEN ZULU' marks. They also claim that their business is
distinct from the plaintiff's, as they focus on private ownership of electric vehicles, while
the plaintiff operates a rental model.

Legal Proceedings
The plaintiff has filed for a temporary injunction to prevent the defendant from using
the 'ZULU' mark. The court is currently considering whether the plaintiff has made a
prima facie case for trademark infringement, and where the balance of convenience lies.

Liability
The deposition revolves around a trademark dispute between YULU Bikes Pvt. Ltd. and
KINETIC GREEN Energy and Power Solutions Ltd. YULU Bikes alleges that KINETIC
GREEN has infringed upon their trademark by launching an electric bike named 'ZULU',
which is deceptively similar to 'YULU'. YULU Bikes has sought an injunction to prevent
KINETIC GREEN from using the 'ZULU' trademark. KINETIC GREEN, on the other
hand, argues that they have a valid registration for the 'ZULU' trademark and that there is
no likelihood of confusion or deception.

- Plaintiff's Claims: YULU Bikes claims that they have been using the 'YULU' trademark since
2017 and have built significant goodwill and reputation in the market. They argue that KINETIC
GREEN's use of the 'ZULU' trademark is likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm
their business.
- Defendant's Defense: KINETIC GREEN argues that they have a valid registration for the
'ZULU' trademark and that there is no likelihood of confusion or deception. They also argue that
their business model and customer base are different from YULU Bikes, reducing the likelihood
of confusion.
- Expert Analysis: Based on the deposition, it appears that YULU Bikes has a strong case for
trademark infringement. They have been using the 'YULU' trademark for a longer period, and

Page 3 of 5
the 'ZULU' trademark is phonetically and visually similar. However, the final decision will
depend on the court's interpretation of the evidence and the applicable law.

Trademark Infringement
Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses a trademark that is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, in a way that is likely to cause
confusion among consumers. In this case, YULU Bikes alleges that KINETIC GREEN's use
of the 'ZULU' trademark infringes upon their 'YULU' trademark.

Passing Off
Passing off is a common law tort that occurs when one party misrepresents their goods or
services as being the goods or services of another party, causing damage to the reputation
of the victim. YULU Bikes alleges that KINETIC GREEN is passing off their electric bikes
as being YULU Bikes' products by using a deceptively similar trademark.

Damages
Economic Damages

- The plaintiff, YULU Bikes Pvt. Ltd., has spent INR 3,69,52,000 on advertising and marketing
the brand name 'YULU' and its products and services from April 2023 till November 2023.
- The plaintiff has generated a revenue of INR 66,21,70,000 in the period April 2023 to
November 2023 from its operations.
Pain and Suffering
The plaintiff claims that the defendant's use of a similar mark 'ZULU' and 'KINETIC
GREEN ZULU' is causing confusion and deception among the public, leading to damage
and injury to the plaintiff's business.

Opportunity Costs

- The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's infringement of their trademark 'YULU' is causing
dilution of the plaintiff’s brand and affecting its business drastically.
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions are causing them to lose business
opportunities, as customers may be deceived into buying the defendant's 'ZULU' bikes, believing
them to be the plaintiff's 'YULU' bikes.

Page 4 of 5
Examination
The cross-examination primarily focused on the alleged infringement of the plaintiff's
trademark 'YULU' by the defendant's use of the similar mark 'ZULU'. The plaintiff
argued that they have been using the 'YULU' mark since 2017 and have built significant
goodwill and reputation associated with it. They claimed that the defendant's use of
'ZULU' is likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm their business. The
defendant, on the other hand, argued that they have validly registered 'ZULU' and
'KINETIC GREEN ZULU' as their trademarks and that their use does not infringe on the
plaintiff's rights. They also contended that their products are different from the
plaintiff's and cater to a different customer base, thus there is no likelihood of confusion.

1. Plaintiff's Arguments: The plaintiff argued that they have been using the 'YULU' mark since
2017 and have built significant goodwill and reputation associated with it. They claimed that the
defendant's use of 'ZULU' is likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm their
business.
2. Defendant's Arguments: The defendant argued that they have validly registered 'ZULU' and
'KINETIC GREEN ZULU' as their trademarks and that their use does not infringe on the
plaintiff's rights. They also contended that their products are different from the plaintiff's and
cater to a different customer base, thus there is no likelihood of confusion.

Trademark Infringement
The primary point of contention in the cross-examination was the alleged infringement
of the plaintiff's trademark 'YULU' by the defendant's use of the similar mark 'ZULU'.
The plaintiff argued that they have built significant goodwill and reputation associated
with 'YULU' since 2017, and the defendant's use of 'ZULU' is likely to cause confusion
among consumers and harm their business.

Validity of Trademark Registration

The defendant contended that they have validly registered 'ZULU' and 'KINETIC GREEN
ZULU' as their trademarks. They argued that their use of these marks does not infringe
on the plaintiff's rights, as they cater to a different customer base and their products are
different from the plaintiff's.

Page 5 of 5