The Delhi High Court has stepped in to shield Allcargo Logistics Limited’s brand identity, issuing interim orders that bar a rival firm from operating under the name “VRS ALLCARGO” or any lookalike variation linked to logistics services.
The dispute arose after Allcargo moved the Court complaining that VRS All Cargo Packers and Movers Private Limited had begun offering logistics and relocation services using branding that prominently featured the word “ALLCARGO”. According to Allcargo, the similarity was not accidental but calculated to blur brand lines in a highly competitive sector.
In its order passed on December 1, the Court found that the contested name lifted the core element of Allcargo’s registered trademark in full. The judge noted that Allcargo holds statutory protection over the “ALLCARGO” mark across multiple classes, including as a standalone word mark, giving it strong legal footing.
At the interim stage, the Court concluded that Allcargo had established a clear prima facie case. The balance of convenience, it held, lay squarely with the logistics major that has used the ALLCARGO name for decades. Any continued use of a deceptively similar mark was likely to mislead customers and dilute the brand’s goodwill.
As part of the relief, the Court restrained the rival firm, along with its affiliates and agents, from using “VRS ALLCARGO” or any other expression closely resembling ALLCARGO in connection with logistics services. It also directed domain registrars to suspend and block the websites vrsallcargopackers.com, vrsallcargopackers.in and vrsallcargo.in within 24 hours of receiving the order.
The case will come up next for hearing on March 17, 2026.
Allcargo argued that it has been using the ALLCARGO name since the early 1990s and that years of continuous operations, revenue generation and brand-building efforts have made the mark distinctive and widely recognised. The company contended that the rival’s services were identical or overlapping and were being promoted through the same channels, including online platforms, increasing the risk of confusion.
The Court also took note of the fact that the defendants did not appear despite being served. It observed that to an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the competing marks would likely seem indistinguishable, creating confusion about the source of services.
Emphasising Allcargo’s status as the prior and continuous user, the Court held that adopting ALLCARGO as the dominant element of a rival mark was enough to establish a likelihood of deception, justifying immediate restraint.
