No Clean Hands, No Relief
Facts of the Case: The main parties are two garment businesses: the plaintiffs, Velji Karamshi Vaid & Anr., and the defendants, V3 Fashion and others. Plaintiffs own and run a business selling garments under the brand and trademark “V3” and “Volume 3”. They have trademark registrations for these and related marks (like “VOLUME...3 THE PERFECT FASHION”, “CASUAL”, etc.). The plaintiffs allege that they have been in this business for a long time, using their brand all over India and even exporting abroad.Defendants are also running a similar business and have used brand names like “V3”, “V3 STYLE”, and “V3.S” with or without other words.Plaintiffs state that defendants are using or attempting to register similar trademarks for garments, which are identical goods, and that this is causing confusion. Plaintiffs became aware that Defendant No. 7 (later separated from others) had applied for the “V3” trademark, which was later refused by the registrar.Plaintiffs sought an order (interim relief) stopping defendants from using those marks until a full trial is held.
The Dispute: Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of infringing their registered trademarks by using confusingly similar marks and also of passing off (attempting to make it seem that their goods are from the plaintiffs).Defendants argue that they are the earlier users of the “V3” mark (since 2017), that their marks look and sound different, and that no one can have an exclusive right to the letters “V3” alone because plaintiffs’ registration is for a device mark (a special design, not just letters).Plaintiffs reply that their reputation is attached to “V3” and that defendants’ actions are dishonest and misleading.
Detailed Reasoning by the Court:
Necessity of Clean Hands – Honesty of Both Sides: The Judge notes that both sides have not told the whole truth and have hidden important information or taken changing positions in court. This makes it hard to trust either side completely.
Plaintiffs’ Weaknesses:The plaintiffs did not submit all the relevant trademark registration documents up front, and their own statements about when they started using the mark “V3” varied at different times (2010, 2016, 2018, etc.).Plaintiffs did not back up their claims of business sales with concrete evidence like certified invoices or records.Earlier, when trying to register trademarks, plaintiffs themselves told the authorities that their mark was different from other “V3” marks and not conflicting, which weakens their current claim for exclusivity.
Defendants’ Weaknesses:The main defense from defendants was that they used “V3” first (since 2017), but the invoices they showed as proof used the details (like GST and address) of Defendant No. 7, who had actually left the business. There was no proper explanation for this. The court found that sales invoices produced by the defendants for 2017 and 2018 could not be trusted as they seemed doctored or fabricated. Defendants also made different claims in different forums—sometimes saying “V3” was unique and should not be used by others, and other times saying it was not confusingly similar—making their credibility questionable.
Both Sides Lack Reliable Evidence:The Court found that both sides either withheld or manipulated key facts. Neither side could credibly prove exactly when and how they started using their marks, or that customers specifically identified their goods with the marks in question. The usual straightforward way of proving use—by showing actual sales invoices—was not honestly or consistently presented by either side.
Trademark Law Points:Plaintiffs’ trademarks are device marks (a graphical/design element, not just the word “V3” alone). Law says that registration of a device mark does not give complete monopoly over each individual word or letter in it. For a claim of passing off, a business must show that people recognize its goods due to its reputation and that others’ imitation causes confusion. This too was not clearly shown here.
Final Decision: The Judge ruled that neither side deserves an order stopping the other from using the marks, at least at this interim (temporary) stage. The Court refused to give any interim order (injunction) in favor of the plaintiffs.
Case Title: Velji Karamshi Vaid & Anr. Vs V3 Fashion & Ors.
Order Date: 9 September 2025
Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 348 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:14740
Court: Bombay High Court
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
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
No comments:
Post a Comment