Varun Chopra & Anr. Vs Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons

Head Note of the Case

Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in a family trade mark dispute over the registered composite label mark “NATRAJ GOD” with words “NATRAJ BRAND / SAFFRON & SILVER LEAVES” (registered since 1978 in Class 30 for edible saffron and silver foil used in confectionery). The Court held that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case of infringement or passing off because: (i) the impugned marks (“SV NATRAJ”, “SV RAJ”, “RAJNUT”, “SRI NATRAJ JI”) were not deceptively similar when compared holistically under the anti-dissection rule; (ii) the word “NATRAJ” (name of a deity) is not exclusively protectable and has not acquired secondary meaning identifying only the plaintiff’s goods; and (iii) ownership of the mark itself is seriously disputed in a family context, with defendants claiming ancestral/coparcenary rights flowing from Mohan Lal Chopra’s 1971 Will and a 2019 family settlement (Apsi Samjhautanama). Balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also not established, as the defendants are co-family members with prima facie shared goodwill, and any alleged loss is compensable in damages. The Court clarified that in intra-family trade mark disputes, exclusive proprietary rights cannot be presumed without conclusive proof at trial, and family arrangements/wills must be respected. No injunction was granted; the suit will proceed to trial on ownership and infringement.

Introduction

This is a classic intra-family trade mark and passing-off dispute arising from a multi-generational family business dealing in edible saffron and silver foil (vark) used for decorating sweets and confectionery. The mark in question — a composite label featuring the “NATRAJ” device (depicting Lord Shiva in cosmic dance form) along with the words “NATRAJ BRAND / SAFFRON & SILVER LEAVES” — was originally registered in 1978 in the name of the partnership firm M/s Raja Traders. After the death of the patriarch Mohan Lal Chopra in 1980, the family split into factions, leading to rival claims of ownership: the plaintiff (Varun Chopra, grandson of J.K. Chopra) asserts exclusive rights through assignment and a 2021 Will, while the defendants (other grandsons and the HUF) assert ancestral/coparcenary rights under Mohan Lal Chopra’s 1971 Will and a 2019 family settlement. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using allegedly deceptively similar marks (“SV NATRAJ”, “SV RAJ”, “RAJNUT”, “SRI NATRAJ JI”). Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court, after a detailed examination of rival marks, family documents, and long user, refused the injunction, holding that no prima facie case existed and that ownership itself requires full trial. The judgment is significant for its application of the holistic comparison test, the anti-dissection rule, and principles governing family trade mark disputes.

Factual Background

The business of manufacturing and selling edible saffron and silver foil under the “NATRAJ” brand was started in 1956 by Mohan Lal Chopra and his son J.K. Chopra as a partnership firm M/s Raja Traders. The composite label mark was registered on 25.12.1978 (No. 344176) in Class 30. Mohan Lal Chopra died on 14.05.1980, leaving a Will dated 11.04.1971 (MLC Will) directing that the business devolve equally upon his grandsons (Chander Sheel, Vinod Kumar, and Shyam Sunder Chopra, with provision for future grandsons). J.K. Chopra continued the business, initially claiming sole proprietorship. In 2015, Shyam Sunder Chopra and Vinod Kumar Chopra executed affidavits (Form TM-24) affirming J.K. Chopra as proprietor for trade mark registry purposes. In 2019, a family settlement (Apsi Samjhautanama) was allegedly executed delineating product-wise use of the “NATRAJ” brand among family members. On 20.06.2022, J.K. Chopra executed an Assignment Deed in favour of his grandson Varun Chopra (plaintiff), transferring all rights in the mark. J.K. Chopra died on 11.01.2025; his 25.11.2021 Will (JKC Will) also bequeathed the mark and business to Varun Chopra. The defendants (Shyam Sunder Chopra’s HUF, his sons Sampan and Vaibhav Chopra, and related entities) began using variants such as “SV NATRAJ”, “SV RAJ”, “RAJNUT”, and “SRI NATRAJ JI” from around 2019–2022, claiming ancestral rights. Sales occur through online portals and B2B channels, with the defendants asserting bona fide use based on shared family goodwill.

Procedural Background

The dispute first surfaced in October 2022 when the plaintiff and J.K. Chopra filed O.S. No. 6788/2022 before the Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru, alleging infringement based on sales in Karnataka. The Bengaluru Court repeatedly returned the plaint for lack of territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction (orders dated 11.04.2023, 28.08.2023, 02.07.2024). Interim injunctions were granted and later vacated or not continued by the Karnataka High Court. The plaintiff then filed the present commercial suit (CS(COMM) 291/2024) before the Delhi High Court on 05.04.2024. The instant application (I.A. 7808/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) seeks interim restraint against use of the impugned marks. Defendants opposed the application, arguing lack of prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour, and no irreparable injury. Earlier related I.As. (5182/2025 & 7932/2025) are procedural but do not alter the core relief sought.

Dispute in Question

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks “SV NATRAJ / SV RAJ / RAJNUT / SRI NATRAJ JI” (or any deceptively similar mark) in relation to saffron and silver foil, on the grounds of trade mark infringement under Section 29 and/or passing off, pending final adjudication of ownership of the registered mark “NATRAJ GOD / NATRAJ BRAND / SAFFRON & SILVER LEAVES”.

Arguments of Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments (Varun Chopra):

J.K. Chopra became sole proprietor after 1980; defendants (including Shyam Sunder and Vinod Kumar) were only salaried employees.

2015 Affidavits (Form TM-24) and Assignment Deed (2022) + JKC Will conclusively vest exclusive ownership in the plaintiff.

Defendants are estopped/acquiesced by their own affidavits and long user by J.K. Chopra as proprietor.

Impugned marks are deceptively similar; “NATRAJ” is the prominent/essential feature; defendants’ use amounts to infringement and passing off.

Plaintiff has long user since 1956, secondary meaning, substantial goodwill, and sales turnover; defendants’ recent adoption (post-2019) is mala fide.

Balance of convenience and irreparable injury favour the plaintiff; family settlement (if any) does not transfer ownership of the mark.

Defendants’ Arguments (Shyam Sunder Chopra HUF & Ors.):

The mark is ancestral/joint family property under Mohan Lal Chopra’s 1971 Will; all grandsons are coparceners with equal rights.

Business continued as joint family concern; 2015 Affidavits were fiduciary/family documents, not a relinquishment of rights.

2019 Apsi Samjhautanama is a valid family arrangement dividing product lines while preserving shared rights in “NATRAJ”.

Impugned marks are visually, phonetically, and structurally distinct; no deceptive similarity when marks are compared as a whole.

No secondary meaning or exclusivity over the deity name “NATRAJ”; plaintiff cannot monopolise a religious term.

Plaintiff has not proved irreparable injury (stable turnover); balance of convenience lies with defendants who are co-family members exercising legitimate inherited rights.

Suit is barred by Order II Rule 2/XXIII Rule 1 CPC due to earlier Bengaluru proceedings; ownership dispute requires full trial.

Reasoning of the Judge (including different provisions of law and their context)

Justice Tejas Karia applied the classic three-fold test for interim injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) and refused relief.

Key Legal Provisions and Concepts Explained:

Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC

Interim injunction is a discretionary, equitable relief granted only when the plaintiff demonstrates a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, and likelihood of irreparable injury not compensable in damages. The Court acts on the basis of affidavits and documents at an interim stage without finally deciding disputed facts.

Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 29 (Infringement)

Infringement occurs when an unregistered person uses a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered mark in relation to similar goods in a manner likely to cause confusion. The Court must compare the marks as a whole, not dissect them (anti-dissection rule).

Section 17 – Effect of registration of parts of a mark

Registration of a composite mark confers rights in the mark as a whole. No monopoly can be claimed over a part (e.g., the word “NATRAJ”) unless that part is separately registered or has acquired distinctiveness. “NATRAJ” being a deity name is common to the trade and non-exclusively protectable without secondary meaning.

Passing Off (Common Law Tort)

Requires proof of (i) goodwill, (ii) misrepresentation, and (iii) damage. In family disputes, goodwill is often shared; mere use by another family member does not automatically constitute misrepresentation.

Family Trade Mark Disputes – Ancestral Property & Estoppel

Trade marks can be ancestral property. A 1971 Will and 2019 family settlement create prima facie shared rights. Affidavits executed in a fiduciary family context do not operate as absolute relinquishment without clear evidence. Doctrine of estoppel/acquiescence requires proof of unequivocal representation and detrimental reliance.

Judgements relied upon by the Judge and their context

Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701

Supreme Court laid down the holistic comparison test: visual, phonetic, structural, and conceptual similarity must be assessed in entirety. Mere shared generic/descriptive word does not prove deception.

Schweppes Ltd. v. Gibbens (1905) 22 RPC 601

Classic authority for comparing marks “in their entirety” from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. v. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2011:DHC:304

Delhi High Court held that a deity name (“KRISHNA”) cannot be monopolised without clear secondary meaning; mere sales turnover does not automatically confer exclusivity.

Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhman Properties Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4738

Division Bench clarified that common/descriptive words in a composite mark cannot be dissected for exclusivity; protection is for the mark as a whole.

Rajni Dua & Ors. v. Bhushan Kumar & Ors., (1999) DLT 392

Family trade mark disputes require respect for family arrangements/wills; one member cannot claim exclusive rights over ancestral marks without clear evidence extinguishing others’ rights.

Sri Krishna Sweets Private Ltd. v. M. Murali, CMA No. 2266 of 2017 (Madras High Court)

In family mark disputes, courts must consider the familial context rather than treat it as a pure commercial infringement; longstanding shared use weighs against injunction.

The Judge distinguished plaintiff-cited cases (Empire Spices, Daiwa Pharmaceuticals, etc.) as involving unrelated third-party infringers with clear copying of distinctive elements, unlike the present intra-family dispute with shared historical user.

Final Decision

I.A. 7808/2024 (and connected applications) dismissed. No interim injunction granted. The defendants are not restrained from using the impugned marks pending trial. The suit will proceed to full trial on the issues of ownership, validity of assignment/will, family settlement, and infringement/passing off. All contentions kept open.

Concluding Note

The judgment is a textbook illustration of judicial restraint in intra-family intellectual property disputes. By refusing to grant an interim injunction on disputed ownership documents and applying the holistic comparison test strictly, the Court has prevented one branch of the family from obtaining a tactical advantage through litigation before the core issue of ancestral rights is adjudicated. It reinforces that trade marks originating in family businesses carry a presumption of shared goodwill unless conclusively disproved, and that deity names cannot be monopolised lightly. The decision balances commercial rights with equitable family principles and serves as a reminder that interim relief is not a substitute for trial on seriously contested facts.

Legal Point Settled in this Case (with clear explanation of legal concepts)

Holistic Comparison & Anti-Dissection Rule in Composite Marks

When comparing a registered composite label mark with an impugned mark, courts must examine the marks in their entirety (visual, phonetic, structural, conceptual) rather than dissecting and comparing isolated elements (Section 29 read with Section 17). A common word (especially a deity name) does not automatically create deception if the overall impression differs. This prevents monopolisation of generic/descriptive elements.

Family Trade Marks as Ancestral Property

In Indian law, a trade mark used in a joint family business can constitute ancestral property devolving by intestate succession or will. A patriarch’s will directing equal rights among grandsons creates prima facie coparcenary rights. Unilateral assignment by one member without consent of other coparceners is prima facie ineffective. Family settlements (Apsi Samjhautanama) delineating product-wise use are relevant and must be respected at the interim stage.

Estoppel/Acquiescence in Family Context

Affidavits executed inter se family members for trade mark registry purposes (Form TM-24) are presumed fiduciary unless proved otherwise. Mere attestation or signing does not operate as absolute relinquishment of ancestral rights (Ramesh Chander v. Budha Singh applied). Long shared use negates claims of exclusive proprietorship.

No Secondary Meaning for Deity Names without Clear Evidence

A word denoting a deity (e.g., “NATRAJ”) is common to the trade. Long user and sales figures alone do not confer secondary meaning sufficient to exclude family members from bona fide use unless the mark has lost its original religious significance and exclusively identifies the plaintiff’s goods (Bhole Baba and Vardhman Buildtech applied).

Burden and Standard at Interim Stage in Ownership Disputes

When ownership itself is seriously disputed on the basis of competing wills, settlements, and family documents, the plaintiff cannot claim a strong prima facie case for injunction. Balance of convenience lies in allowing status quo (shared family use) rather than disrupting one party’s business pending trial. Irreparable injury is not presumed if turnover remains stable and loss is monetary.

These principles provide clear guidance to practitioners and courts handling family IP disputes: treat them as equitable family matters first, apply strict trademark tests second, and defer final ownership determination to trial.

Case Detail

Title: Varun Chopra & Anr. Vs Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons HUF & Ors.

Date of Order: 28 March 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 291/2024, I.A. 5182/2025 & I.A. 7932/2025

Neutral Citation: Not assigned in the judgment (as on date of delivery)

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Suggested Suitable Titles for YouTube Explainer Video

“Delhi HC Refuses Injunction in Family ‘NATRAJ’ Brand War – Ancestral Trademark Rights Explained!”

“NATRAJ Saffron Dispute: Why Delhi High Court Said No to Interim Injunction | Full Case Breakdown”

“Family Trade Mark Battle Over Deity Name ‘NATRAJ’ – Key Legal Lessons from Varun Chopra Case”

“Delhi HC on Family Settlement & Trademark Ownership | SV NATRAJ vs NATRAJ BRAND Judgment 2026”

“Can One Family Member Monopolise ‘NATRAJ’ Brand? Delhi HC Judgment on Ancestral IP Rights”

“Holistic Comparison Test Applied: Why ‘SV NATRAJ’ Not Infringing ‘NATRAJ’ | Detailed Analysis”

“Landmark Family Trademark Case: Delhi HC Dismisses Interim Injunction in Chopra Family Dispute”