Siyaram Silk Mills Limited Vs Stanford Siyaram Fashion

In this commercial IP suit filed in 2008 by Siyaram Silk Mills Limited against Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited & Ors., the plaintiff sought injunction against defendants' use of "Siyaram" in their corporate name and marks for textiles, alleging trademark infringement and passing off based on plaintiff's prior use since 1977, registrations from 1984, extensive sales, promotion and goodwill. Plaintiff discovered defendants' incorporation and use in 2007, sent cease-desist notice, and filed notice of motion for interim relief in 2013. Defendants defended claiming prior use by their father since 1992 under "Siyaram Fashion Store", adoption as Hindu god name, mandatory company name disclosure under Weights Act, registration of composite label "Apricott – a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.", and plaintiff's delay/acquiescence. The court reasoned that defendants failed to prove assignment of goodwill from father, making prior use claim untenable; plaintiff's registrations crystallized before defendants' incorporation in 2006; defendants' adoption was dishonest with knowledge of plaintiff's mark; composite registration confers no exclusivity over "Siyaram" per Sections 17 and 28(3) of Trade Marks Act; honesty of adoption irrelevant once infringement/passing off established; likelihood of confusion imminent given identical trade; defense of god name rejected as mark acquired distinctiveness and no statutory bar; no acquiescence without positive encouragement, and delay insignificant in dishonest adoption cases. Balancing factors, court found strong prima facie case for plaintiff, balance of convenience favoring injunction to prevent irreparable harm, and granted interim relief restraining infringement and passing off.

- Prior use of a mark by a predecessor cannot be claimed by a company without pleading and proving assignment or transfer of the mark along with associated goodwill. (Para 10)

- Registration of a composite mark does not confer exclusive rights over individual components under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 28(3) provides no defense to passing off actions. (Para G)

- Honesty of adoption is irrelevant if trademark infringement or passing off is otherwise established, and a defendant cannot use a deceptively similar corporate/trading name to a registered mark. (Para F, citing F. Hoffmann-La Roche v. Geoffrey Manners, Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd., Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah)

- Acquiescence requires positive acts encouraging the defendant's use, and delay does not bar relief in cases of dishonest adoption. (Para J, citing Charak Pharma v. Ajanta Pharma, Sun Pharma v. Anglo French Drugs, Midas Hygiene v. Sudhir Bhatia)

- Marks comprising names of deities are not barred if they acquire distinctiveness and have no descriptive nexus to goods. (Para I)

**Case Details**  

Case Title: Siyaram Silk Mills Limited Vs  Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited & Ors.  

Order Date: 13th January, 2026  

Case Number: Notice of Motion No. 22 of 2013 in Commercial IP Suit No. 23 of 2008  

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:1037  

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay  

Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arif S. Doctor

[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]