Ramnish Verma & Finesse Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd. & Ors.

Case Title: Ramnish Verma & Finesse Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd. & Ors.

Order Date: 7th October 2025

Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 247/2023

Neutral Citation: 2025 BHC OS 18067

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division

Hon’ble Judge: Hon'ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

This case involves a trademark infringement and passing off dispute centered on the use of the trademark "ROOKIES" by the plaintiffs and the allegedly similar use of "ROOKIE USA" by the defendants. The plaintiff, Ramnish Verma, is the registered proprietor of the trademark "ROOKIES" and several related marks registered in India and select other countries, and they conduct business under this mark through exclusive brand outlets and multi-brand outlets. The defendants include The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd. and associated entities who have used the mark "ROOKIE" and "ROOKIE USA" in India, including opening retail stores under that mark without the consent of the plaintiffs.

The dispute arose when the plaintiffs found that the defendants had adopted the mark "ROOKIE USA" prominently highlighting the word "ROOKIE" in their branding, which the plaintiffs claimed was deceptively similar to their registered "ROOKIES" mark and likely to cause confusion among consumers. The plaintiffs issued cease and desist notices and initiated rectification proceedings against some of the defendants’ trademark registrations. Since the defendants had registrations for "ROOKIE" in Classes 18 and 35 but did not initially register in Class 25 (covering clothing), complexity arose over whether the goods and services covered by the marks were similar and potentially infringing.

Procedurally, the plaintiffs filed this suit for injunction and damages seeking to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark or any mark confusingly similar and to transfer domain names incorporating "ROOKIE." The defendants contested the suit, relying on prior registrations of "ROOKIE" in India and abroad, arguing that their goods and services did not overlap with the plaintiffs'.

The detailed reasoning of the court involved an examination of the trademark registrations, prior use, and evidence presented on both sides. The court noted that the plaintiffs had used "ROOKIES" since 2008 for clothing and footwear (Class 25) and had established goodwill and reputation in India with retail presence across multiple cities. The defendants’ registration of "ROOKIE" in Classes 18 (bags, wallets) and 35 (retail services) was noted with their first retail store in India under "ROOKIE USA" opening in 2019. The court emphasized the legal principle that classification of goods and services is for administrative convenience and does not solely determine infringement issues. It examined whether the goods (clothing) and the services (retail and marketing) are associated or cognate in commercial trade terms.

The court referred to established Supreme Court precedents such as Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. [2016 2 SCC 672] and principles related to prior use, abandonment of registered marks, and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, which prevents parties from taking contradictory stances in trademark oppositions. The court found that the defendants had not demonstrated genuine use of their registered marks in India prior to plaintiffs’ use of "ROOKIES," indicating potential abandonment of the defendants' claimed rights. The court held that the defendants' adoption of "ROOKIE USA" was dishonest and likely to cause confusion among the public, causing harm to plaintiffs' goodwill.

Further, the court considered the likelihood of confusion under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, holding that the presence of similar marks on related goods or services can result in infringement if the public is likely to be deceived or confused. It rejected defendants’ arguments that goods and services in different classes cannot be compared, noting commercial realities and consumer perception override mere classification. The court also underscored that prior registration as such does not give absolute immunity if the registration is found to be obtained or used fraudulently or dishonestly.

The court granted interim injunctions restraining the defendants from using the mark "ROOKIE" or any confusingly similar mark, including the domain names containing "ROOKIE," pending trial. It also directed the defendants to hand over the domain name "rookieindia.com" to the plaintiffs or take steps to take down the website. The court stayed the operative order for six weeks to allow for necessary compliance.

In conclusion, the judgment affirms the principles that trademark protection is grounded in prior use, reputation, and likelihood of consumer confusion. It establishes that courts may look beyond registration, especially where registrations appear fraudulent or marks are not genuinely used. The judgment underscores the legal protections against dishonest adoption of marks likely to cause confusion and the importance of safeguarding brand goodwill in Indian commercial law.

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

Suggested Titles for Publication:

"Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: The 'ROOKIES' vs. 'ROOKIE USA' Dispute"

"Beyond Registration: Examining Honest Use and Fraud in Indian Trademark Law"

"Commercial Realities and Trademark Classifications: A Legal Analysis"

"Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel in Trademark Disputes: Insights from Ramnish Verma v. Haddad Apparel"

"Trademark Protection and Consumer Confusion: Principles Affirmed by Bombay High Court"