**Suitable Titles for the Article:**
1. Gujarat High Court Dismisses Appeal in 'GULAB' vs 'ROSE' Edible Oil Trademark Battle: Delay and Lack of Distinctiveness Seal the Fate
2. When Roses and Gulabs Collide: Gujarat High Court Explains Why Old Knowledge Defeats Fresh Injunction Claims in Trademark Cases
3. Key Takeaways from Gujarat High Court on Interim Relief in Trademark Disputes: A Simple Guide to Prima Facie Case, Delay, and Good Judgment Writing
**Suitable Tags:**
Trademark Infringement, Passing Off Action, Interim Injunction, Delay and Acquiescence, Distinctiveness of Marks, Commercial Court Judgment, Gujarat High Court, Edible Oil Brands, Trade Mark Registry Proceedings, Judgment Writing Guidelines
### Introduction
In a clear and practical ruling, the Gujarat High Court has once again reminded businesses and lawyers that trademark protection is not automatic. Even a registered mark does not guarantee an immediate stop order against a rival if the owner has waited too long or failed to show that the mark truly stands out in the minds of ordinary buyers. The dispute between two edible oil makers—one using the word “GULAB” and the other “ROSE”—brought these basic principles back into focus. The court refused to grant any temporary ban on the rival’s mark, stressing honesty, prompt action, and real proof of consumer confusion.
### Factual Background
The plaintiffs belong to the same family group and have been selling groundnut and other edible oils under the mark “GULAB” for many years. They hold registrations for the word and some label versions that include a rose-flower picture. They claim huge sales and heavy advertising have built strong goodwill around “GULAB”.
The defendants sell similar oils under the mark “ROSE”, also with a flower device. The plaintiffs argued that “Gulab” and “Rose” mean the same thing in Hindi and English, so ordinary shoppers would mix up the two products and think they come from the same source. They said the defendants copied the idea deliberately to ride on their reputation.
The defendants replied that they had been using “ROSE” openly since the early 1990s (at least since 2008 when they applied for registration). They pointed out that the plaintiffs knew about their mark for more than fourteen years because they had opposed the registration application back in 2008. Yet the plaintiffs stayed silent until 2022. The defendants also said “GULAB” is a common dictionary word for rose flower and cannot be monopolised.
### Procedural Background
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit in 2022 seeking permanent injunction, damages, and accounts for both trademark infringement and passing off. They immediately asked for a temporary injunction. The trial court first granted it in 2023, but the High Court sent the matter back for fresh hearing after considering all objections raised by the defendants.
On fresh consideration in November 2024, the Commercial Court at Morbi rejected the temporary injunction application. It found no strong prima facie case, noted the long delay, and held that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed the present appeal before the Gujarat High Court, arguing that the trial court had ignored the similarity of the marks and wrongly relied only on delay.
### Reasoning and Decision of Court
The High Court carefully examined the pleadings, the labels, and the evidence placed before the trial court. It applied well-settled tests: whether the marks are deceptively similar, whether ordinary buyers with imperfect memory are likely to be confused, and whether the plaintiffs had shown real goodwill attached to their specific device mark.
The court found that the plaintiffs could not prove on a prima facie basis that “GULAB with rose flower” had become so distinctive that buyers immediately connect it only to their goods. The word “GULAB” itself is descriptive and laudatory. Long use alone does not turn a common word into an exclusive brand unless buyers stop thinking of it as “rose flower” and start thinking only of the plaintiffs’ oil. The plaintiffs had not shown such secondary meaning.
On delay, the court noted that the plaintiffs had known about the defendants’ mark since at least 2008 when they filed an opposition at the Trade Marks Registry. Waiting fourteen years before rushing to court for an urgent injunction was fatal. Such long silence amounts to acquiescence and disentitles the plaintiffs from equitable relief like temporary injunction.
The court also clarified an important practical point. Even though the defendants’ registration application is still pending before the Trade Marks Registry, the civil court cannot avoid deciding the temporary injunction question on the ground that “the issue is pending elsewhere”. The trial court must form its own prima facie view on similarity, likelihood of confusion, and the three ingredients for injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Leaving everything to the Registry is not correct.
After weighing everything, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order. The appeal was dismissed. The suit will now proceed to full trial without any interim restraint on the defendants. The court also gently advised Commercial Courts across the state to write clearer, more structured judgments that focus on issues rather than long unnecessary narration.
### Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment settles three straightforward but vital points for everyday trademark practice.
First, registration gives a right, but at the interim stage the owner must still show a strong prima facie case that the mark has acquired distinctiveness and that confusion is likely. A common word like “GULAB” (rose) needs extra proof that buyers see it only as the plaintiffs’ brand.
Second, long delay and silence after knowing about a rival’s use will almost always defeat a claim for urgent temporary injunction. Acquiescence is a complete bar to equitable relief.
Third, a civil court hearing an injunction application cannot pass the buck to the Trade Marks Registry on core questions of similarity and confusion. It must decide these issues on a prima facie basis, keeping in mind that it is not conducting a full trial.
The ruling also serves as a gentle reminder to judges about the art of clear judgment writing—structure, brevity, and focus on real issues make justice more accessible.
**Case Detail**
**Title:** M/S. MANGROL OIL MILL & ORS. Versus VIKAS OIL INDUSTRIES & ANR.
**Date of Order:** 20 February 2026
**Case Number:** R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025 with CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
**Neutral Citation:** Not assigned
**Name of Court:** High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
**Name of Hon'ble Judges:** Hon’ble Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
**Disclaimer:** 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
**Headnote of the Article**
Gujarat High Court dismisses appeal against rejection of ad-interim injunction in “GULAB” vs “ROSE” edible oil trademark suit. Court holds that descriptive mark failed to show prima facie distinctiveness, long delay and acquiescence bar equitable relief, and civil courts must independently assess similarity at interim stage rather than deferring to Trade Marks Registry. Clear guidelines issued on structured judgment writing for Commercial Courts. Appeal dismissed; suit to proceed to trial.
====
**Summary**
Plaintiffs from one family sell edible oils under the registered mark “GULAB” with a rose-flower device and claim long use and goodwill. Defendants sell similar oils under the mark “ROSE” with a flower device. Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit for trademark infringement and passing off and sought an interim injunction. The trial court rejected the injunction after finding that plaintiffs had known about defendants’ mark since 2008 when they opposed its registration, yet waited till 2022 to sue, amounting to delay and acquiescence. After the High Court remanded the matter for fresh hearing, the trial court again refused relief. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that “GULAB” is a common descriptive word, plaintiffs failed to show any strong prima facie case of distinctiveness or confusion, long silence disentitled them from equitable relief, and the Commercial Court must itself decide similarity and confusion on prima facie basis instead of deferring everything to the Trade Marks Registry.
**Points of Law Settled in the Case**
• A registered but descriptive mark like “GULAB” (meaning rose) requires clear prima facie proof of acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning to claim interim injunction; mere registration is not enough. (Para 24 of the Judgment)
• Inordinate delay and acquiescence after actual knowledge of rival use (here since 2008) completely bars grant of ad-interim injunction as it is discretionary equitable relief. (Paras 14, 28, 39 & 54 of the Judgment)
• At interim injunction stage, the Commercial Court must independently examine deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion and prima facie case; it cannot defer or leave these core issues to pending proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry. (Paras 18-21 & 37 of the Judgment)
• Appellate Court interferes with trial court’s discretionary order refusing interim injunction only if it is arbitrary, capricious or perverse; it does not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view. (Para 53 of the Judgment, relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.)
**Case Title:** M/S. MANGROL OIL MILL & ORS. Versus VIKAS OIL INDUSTRIES & ANR.
**Order Date:** 20 February 2026
**Case Number:** R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 192 of 2025 with CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
**Neutral Citation:** Not assigned
**Name of Court:** High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
**Name of Judges:** Hon’ble the Chief Justice Mrs. Justice Sunita Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
Disclaimer: 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
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
No comments:
Post a Comment