Sunil Niranjan Shah Vs. Vijay Bahadur

Sunil Niranjan Shah, claiming adoption and use of trademarks 'GAAY CHHAP', 'COW BRAND' and variants since 1975 for detergent products with registrations and artistic works featuring a cow, filed a suit against Vijay Bahadur for infringement, passing off, unfair competition, damages, and delivery up, alleging the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks like 'GOPAL GAI CHHAP' caused confusion; the plaintiff sought interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, while the defendant contested territorial jurisdiction, claimed prior use since 1973, and alleged plaintiff's concealment of facts. 

The Delhi High Court, finding jurisdiction based on the defendant's interactive IndiaMart listing accessible in Delhi constituting purposeful availment, held that the plaintiff established prior use and goodwill with high turnover, while the defendant's evidence of prior use was doubtful and unreliable; noting triple identity in marks, goods, and trade channels leading to inevitable confusion, prima facie dishonest adoption by the defendant, balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoring the plaintiff, the court granted the interim injunction on 24.11.2025 restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks.

Rights of prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent registrant (Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., 1977 SCC OnLine Del 50, Para 15).

Territorial jurisdiction in trademark suits can be invoked where the defendant's interactive e-commerce platform (like IndiaMart) is accessible in the forum state, establishing purposeful availment (Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, Para 8-9).

A party seeking registration of a mark cannot later claim it is descriptive and common to trade, as it amounts to approbation and reprobation (Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan and Anr., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27; Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1758, Para 15).

In cases of triple identity (identical marks, goods, and trade channels), interim injunction is warranted to prevent confusion and protect goodwill (Para 19).

Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah Vs. Vijay Bahadur  : 24 November 2025:CS(COMM) 669/2025:2025:DHC:10364:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia  

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]  

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