SML Limited Vs. Safex Chemicals (India) Ltd

Allied Goods and Trade Mark Protection

Facts: This case involves a company called SML Limited, which used to be known as Sulphur Mills Limited, claiming that another company, Safex Chemicals (India) Ltd, was wrongly using a trade name very similar to its own. SML Limited makes products like fertilizers and plant nutrients, and it registered the name "TRACKON" for these items back in 2019, after applying in 2018. It also registered "TRACKON GOLD" in 2021. The company changed its name to SML Limited in 2022 and updated the registrations to show this change. SML Limited says it started using "TRACKON" in 2018 and has been selling products under this name ever since, building up sales and reputation over the years. In late 2024, SML Limited found out that Safex Chemicals had applied to register "TRACKON" for pesticides and insecticides, claiming they started using it in 2020. SML Limited opposed that registration right away. When they checked the market again in early 2025, they found Safex Chemicals selling an insecticide under "TRACKON". 

SML Limited bought a sample of it in April 2025 from a shop in Haryana. They noticed that this product was not even listed on Safex Chemicals' own website but was on third-party sites like IndiaMart. SML Limited pointed out that this was not the first time they had issues with Safex Chemicals, as there was an earlier case about another name "PEARL" where Safex Chemicals agreed to stop using it. SML Limited believes Safex Chemicals is a repeat offender, having faced court orders in other cases too. On the other side, Safex Chemicals says it has been around since 1991, selling over 120 agrochemical products. It claims it came up with "TRACKON" in 2020 honestly, after checking the market, and has been using it ever since without any problems. It argues its products are different—pesticides, not fertilizers—and the packaging, colors, and prices are not the same, so no one would mix them up. Safex Chemicals also questions SML Limited's old invoices, saying they look fake because they show the new company name on papers from before the name change. SML Limited explained that this happened because of their computer system, which updates old invoices with the new template when reprinted, and they provided proof like GST numbers and ledgers to back this up. Safex Chemicals also says SML Limited knew about them since 2024 but waited too long to sue, and that SML Limited once told the trade mark office that a similar name "TRICON" was not confusing, so they should not complain now.

Procedural Details: The case started when SML Limited filed a lawsuit in the Bombay High Court in April 2025, asking for a court order to stop Safex Chemicals from using "TRACKON". This was under the court's commercial division for intellectual property matters. Along with the main suit, SML Limited filed an interim application, which is a request for a temporary stop order while the full case is decided. The court heard arguments from both sides through video calls. Lawyers for SML Limited showed registration papers, sales records, and proof of buying the rival product. Safex Chemicals filed a reply in May 2025, denying everything and providing its own sales figures from 2022 onward. Both sides exchanged more papers, like rejoinders, to respond to each other's points. The judge reserved the decision on August 12, 2025, after hearing everyone, and gave the final order on September 22, 2025. No trial with witnesses has happened yet; this is just about the temporary relief.

Dispute:The main fight is over whether Safex Chemicals is breaking the law by using "TRACKON" for its pesticides when SML Limited already has it registered for fertilizers. SML Limited says this is infringement because the names are exactly the same, and even though the products are in different official categories (Class 1 for fertilizers and Class 5 for pesticides), they are related enough in farming that people might think they come from the same company. This could confuse farmers who buy both kinds of products from the same shops. SML Limited also says Safex Chemicals is trying to pass off its goods as theirs to cash in on their reputation. Safex Chemicals fights back by saying the products are totally different—one helps plants grow, the other kills bugs—so no confusion. They point to different packaging, like colors and shapes, and much higher prices for their item. They accuse SML Limited of hiding facts, like what they said about "TRICON" before, and of delaying the lawsuit. They claim they honestly came up with the name and have been using it for years without issues. The court had to decide if SML Limited proved enough at this early stage to get a temporary ban on Safex Chemicals using the name.

Detailed Reasoning: The judge started by agreeing that the names "TRACKON" and "TRACKON GOLD" are exactly the same as what Safex Chemicals is using, so they look, sound, and mean the same thing. SML Limited registered first, in 2019 and 2021, while Safex Chemicals applied later in 2023, claiming use from 2020. The law here is the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 29 says a registered name is infringed if someone else uses the same or similar name for similar or related goods, and it might confuse people or make them think the products are connected. 

The judge explained that even if goods are in different classes, like fertilizers in Class 1 and pesticides in Class 5, the classes are just for office work and not the final word. What matters is if the products are allied or cognate, meaning related or from the same family. To check this, the court used tests from old cases. In Corn Products Refining Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, the Supreme Court said cognate goods have a trade connection, like glucose and biscuits because both are food-related. In Allied Auto Accessories Ltd. vs. Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1138, a Bombay High Court judge said classification lists are just guides, not rules, and you look at real-world similarities. The judge also used factors from British Sugar Plc vs. James Robertson & Sons Ltd., [1996] R.P.C. 281, an English case often followed in India: look at how the products are used, who buys them, their physical nature, sales channels, where they are placed in stores, and if they compete. 

In Indchemie Health Specialities (P) Ltd vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10127, a Bombay High Court division bench said you check nature, uses, and trade channels, and all three don't have to match perfectly. Applying these, the judge found fertilizers and pesticides are both agrochemicals for better crops—one adds nutrients, the other fights pests—so they are complementary. Farmers buy both from the same shops, so same users and channels. Even though physically different, they are related enough for infringement under Section 29(2). On confusion, the judge said since the names are identical and SML Limited has sales over Rs. 6 crore from 2018-2025, people might associate Safex Chemicals' product with SML Limited, especially farmers who aren't experts. This satisfies the "likelihood of association" in the law. The judge discussed Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727, where the Supreme Court said infringement is about the mark itself, not packaging, and injunction should follow if proved. On defenses, Safex Chemicals said SML Limited's old invoices are fake because they show the new name. But SML Limited explained it's due to software that updates templates, and proved it with GST numbers, ledgers, and original filings. The judge said this is enough for now; full proof comes later. 

On prior use under Section 34, Safex Chemicals claimed 2020, but SML Limited started in 2018 and registered in 2019, so no defense. On hiding facts, SML Limited once said "TRICON" wasn't similar, but that's different from "TRACKON", so no suppression. On delay, the judge cited Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, where the Supreme Court said delay alone isn't enough to deny injunction in infringement, especially if fraudulent. Here, SML Limited acted in 2025 after finding the product, and no positive encouragement from them. In Jagdish Gopal Kamath vs. Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 531, the Bombay High Court said delay without acquiescence isn't a defense. On honest concurrent use under Section 12, the judge said it's for registration, not a defense in court, and anyway, uses aren't concurrent since SML Limited was first. The judge looked at Safex Chemicals' cases like Mandali Ranganna vs. T. Ramachandra, (2008) 11 SCC 1, on conduct, but said SML Limited's conduct is fine. S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, and Chandra Shashi vs. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421, on fraud, but no fraud here. Rubaljit Singh vs. M/s. Kanz Overseas, CS(OS) No. 213 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009 (Delhi High Court), on fabricated docs, but not here. Phonepe Pvt Ltd vs. Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 764, on changing stands, but marks here are identical, no shift. Unichem Laboratories Ltd vs. Ipca Laboratories, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 2114, similar, not applicable. Wander Ltd vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, on tests for injunction, applied here. Nandhini Deluxe vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, (2018) 9 SCC 183, on different goods, but here goods are related. AMPM Designs vs. Intellectual Property Appellate Board, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 14029, on different goods with prior use, but no prior use here. Cadila Health Care Ltd vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, on deceptive similarity in passing off, noted but infringement is separate. Star Bazaar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Trent Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4764, on concurrent use, but not here. For passing off, the judge cited Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 14, saying passing off needs goodwill, misrepresentation, damage, and is different from infringement—packaging matters more. Here, different packaging means no misrepresentation, so no passing off.

Decision: The court granted a temporary injunction stopping Safex Chemicals from using "TRACKON" because it infringes SML Limited's registered mark. But it did not grant one for passing off, as the different packaging means no one is likely being tricked into thinking the products are the same. The case will go to full trial later.

Case Title: SML Limited Vs. Safex Chemicals (India) Ltd

Order date: September 22, 2025

Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 432 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:16030

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi