Khandelwal Dhaba Vs. Khandelwal Dhaba

Mohit Khandelwal, plaintiff, filed a passing off suit against Manoj Bhagchandani, defendant, claiming exclusive rights to "Khandelwal Dhaba" since 2001 with established goodwill, alleging defendant fraudulently adopted identical name in 2009 for adjacent restaurant causing confusion. Defendant countered with authorization from Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (plaintiff's father) who purportedly used it since 1977 and filed counterclaim for injunction. 

Trial court framed issues, granted permanent injunction to plaintiff in 2017 dismissing counterclaim; on appeal, High Court remanded issue 4 in 2019; trial court reaffirmed in 2019 favoring plaintiff based on documents proving continuous use since 2001, defendant's admissions, and failure to prove valid authorization or honest adoption. Defendant appealed. 

High Court analyzed passing off trinity: plaintiff proved goodwill via documents/telephone bills/licenses and defendant's pleadings admitting use; misrepresentation via dishonest adoption without justification for "Khandelwal" (defendant from Sindhi community lacking surname connection) inferring intent to deceive; likelihood of damage presumed from confusion. 

Law Point:

Prior user's rights in passing off emanate from common law and prevail over subsequent registration or authorization, unaffected by Trade Marks Act provisions: 

Dishonest adoption of identical/similar mark without justification raises strong presumption of mala fides and intent to ride on prior user's goodwill: 

In passing off, no proof of actual damage required; likelihood of confusion/deception presumes injury to goodwill: 

Adoption of another's trade/corporate name, if likely to cause confusion, constitutes passing off even if derived from personal elements

Case Title:  Khandelwal Dhaba Vs. Khandelwal Dhaba :15/01/2026:S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 283/2020 :[2025:RJ-JP:43211]Name of court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur :Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeet Purohit  

[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]