Bengaluru Court Stops Kinetic Green’s “Zulu” e-Scooter Amid Yulu Trademark Dispute

The legal dispute started in late January when Yulu sued Kinetic Green in a city civil and sessions court, claiming that Kinetic Green’s launch of “Zulu” branded e-scooters in mid-December 2023 violated its trademark.

A commercial court in Bengaluru has confirmed a temporary injunction against Kinetic Green Energy, prohibiting them from using, selling, or advertising under the “YULU” trademark or any variations that might confuse, such as “ZULU” and “Kinetic Green Zulu.” This decision follows a similar temporary injunction issued by the High Court of Karnataka on February 5, which also instructed the commercial court to expedite the hearing process.

The legal conflict began in late January when Yulu initiated a lawsuit in a city civil and sessions court, alleging that Kinetic Green’s introduction of their “Zulu” branded e-scooters in mid-December 2023 infringed on their trademark. These e-scooters were expected to start being delivered at the beginning of 2024.

Initially, the lower court rejected Yulu Bikes’ request for an injunction, allowing Kinetic Green to present their defence. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Yulu Bikes appealed the decision in the High Court of Karnataka.

In their defence, Kinetic Green Energy’s lawyers argued that the choice of the mark “ZULU” / “Kinetic Green-ZULU” and the marketing strategy for the launch of the electric scooters under this name were centred around Sulajja Firodia Motwani, the founder and CEO of Kinetic Green. They highlighted that the tagline “Sulu Ki ZULU” was chosen because “ZULU” rhymes with Sulajja’s nickname, “Sulu.” They also pointed out that all of Kinetic Green’s previous products have only four-letter names. They also stated that the mark was registered before its use in the product launch.

With the injunction against Kinetic Green Energy now upheld, the legal battle is set to continue as the commercial court moves forward with the hearing. Both parties must present additional arguments and evidence to support their respective positions in this ongoing trademark dispute.