Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited

**Date of Judgment:** 01.07.2026  

**Case No.:** FAO(OS) (COMM) 120/2026  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:4528-DB  

**Court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Hon'ble Judge:** Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora (for the Division Bench)

The court considered a dispute concerning trademark rights, passing off, and interpretation of family settlement agreements in the steel manufacturing sector. The case arose from allegations of breach of a 2002 family division agreement and conflicting claims over marks like 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD', 'KAMDHENU', and 'KAMDHENU GOLD' following business separation between families. The principal question before the Court was whether the appellant could claim proprietary rights in 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' based on the 2002 agreement and restrain the respondent from using similar marks, or whether the single judge correctly granted injunction to the respondent.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the appellant failed to secure registration or demonstrate consistent use and goodwill in the mark despite the 2002 agreement, while the respondent held registered rights and established prior association. The Court held that the 2002 agreement granted only limited license rights that were revocable, and subsequent arrangements including the 2021 agreement effectively novated prior understandings regarding the disputed mark. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the interim injunction against the appellant's use of 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD', and directed maintenance of status quo pending trial.

[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.]

### Introduction

Trademark battles in family-run businesses often reveal the complexities of legacy marks, division agreements, and brand goodwill. This Delhi High Court Division Bench judgment in a steel industry dispute between Ashiana Ispat and Kamdhenu Limited clarifies the interplay between contractual rights, trademark registration, and actual use in acquiring proprietary interests. For businesses, especially in manufacturing sectors with family origins, the ruling highlights the importance of vigilant enforcement of rights and the risks of delayed registration or inconsistent use. It offers practical guidance to legal practitioners on interpreting settlement agreements and seeking interim relief in passing off and infringement cases, while underscoring consumer protection from market confusion.

### Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute traces back to a joint family business in steel manufacturing involving the Jain and Aggarwal families. In 2002, following business division, the parties executed an agreement demarcating rights over the 'KAMDHENU' family of marks. Ashiana Ispat (AIL) was permitted to adopt and use 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD', with provisions for eventual ownership upon registration. Kamdhenu Limited (KL) retained primary rights in 'KAMDHENU'. A 2021 agreement updated licensing terms for new products like 'KAMDHENU NXT'. After KL issued a termination notice in 2024, cross-suits were filed. A single judge dismissed AIL's injunction application and granted KL's, leading to this appeal. The Division Bench examined agreements, trademark applications, sales evidence, and annual reports spanning 2002-2025.

### Dispute Before the Court

The core issue was whether AIL acquired independent proprietary rights in 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' under the 2002 agreement, entitling it to use the mark and restrain KL from similar marks, or whether KL's registered rights and termination of licensing prevailed. AIL claimed the 2002 agreement conferred ownership rights, not mere license, and that KL breached undertakings by registering similar marks. KL argued the arrangement was a revocable license, novated by the 2021 agreement, with AIL failing to register or use the mark consistently, resulting in no goodwill. Parties also contested novation, estoppel, and balance of convenience for interim relief.

### Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court applied principles from the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 11, 48, and provisions on licensing and passing off. It emphasized that proprietary rights require registration or proven goodwill through actual use, not mere contractual permission. The 2002 agreement's Clauses 22-26 were read as granting limited, conditional rights contingent on registration, which AIL never secured—its 2002 application was abandoned in 2008 without pursuit. The Court noted AIL's minimal use of the mark on goods until 2025, relying mainly on statutory notices rather than product branding, failing to establish common law rights or goodwill.

Precedents on novation under Section 62 of the Contract Act were considered, with the Court finding the 2021 agreement's focus on new products and updated terms indicated substitution of earlier arrangements. Judgments like *Balaji Steel Trade v. Fludor Benin S.A.* (2025) and others on novation were distinguished due to lack of clear intent to preserve 2002 rights alongside new terms. The Court distinguished cases on assignment versus license, holding pervasive control retained by KL indicated licensing, revocable upon termination. It assessed evidence like annual reports showing no prominent use of 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' by AIL and KL's established reputation in 'KAMDHENU' family marks. Balance of convenience favored KL to prevent consumer confusion in safety-critical steel products, where irreparable harm could result from market association.

### Final Decision of the Court

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. It upheld the single judge's order denying interim injunction to AIL and granting it to KL against use of 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD'. The Court clarified that AIL's rights under the 2002 agreement did not survive termination and lack of registration/use, directing parties to maintain status quo pending final trial of the suits.

### Point of Law Settled

The judgment reaffirms that contractual permission to use a mark does not automatically confer proprietary rights without registration or proven goodwill through consistent commercial use. It clarifies that family settlement agreements in IP must be interpreted holistically, with subsequent arrangements potentially novating earlier terms. For future cases, it underscores the need for proactive registration and use to protect marks, strengthening passing off claims through evidence of reputation. This will impact licensing practices in family businesses and interim relief strategies in trademark litigation.

**Case Details:**  

**Title of the Case:** Ashiana Ispat Limited vs Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.  

**Date of Judgment/Order:** 01.07.2026  

**Case Number:** FAO(OS) (COMM) 120/2026  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:4528-DB  

**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora (Division Bench)

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

**Disclaimer:** Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.  

**Suggested SEO Titles:**  

1. Delhi High Court Upholds Kamdhenu's Rights in 'KAMDHENU GOLD' Trademark Dispute  

2. Ashiana Ispat vs Kamdhenu Judgment: Key Lessons on Trademark Assignment and License  

3. Division Bench Delhi HC on Novation of Family Business Agreements in IP Cases  

4. Failure to Register Mark Proves Costly: Analysis of Ashiana Ispat Appeal 2026  

5. Delhi High Court Clarifies Proprietary Rights in 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Dispute  

6. Trademark Use and Goodwill: Delhi HC Ruling in Steel Industry Family Battle  

7. Impact of Termination Notice on License Rights: Kamdhenu Limited Case Explained  

8. Section 48 Trade Marks Act and Passing Off: Delhi HC Division Bench Insights  

9. Family Settlement Agreements and Trademark Novation: 2026 Landmark Judgment  

10. Protecting Brand Reputation in Manufacturing: Delhi HC Steel Marks Verdict  

**Suggested SEO Tags:** Trade Marks Act 1999, trademark license vs assignment, family business division agreement, novation of contract, passing off injunction, Delhi High Court trademark appeal, AL KAMDHENU GOLD, Kamdhenu Limited, Ashiana Ispat, goodwill in trademarks, Section 62 Contract Act, registration of marks, steel industry IP dispute, interim injunction trademark, Division Bench judgment, 2002 family agreement, termination of license, consumer confusion marks, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

**Headnote of the Judgment:** In FAO(OS)(COMM) 120/2026 before the Delhi High Court, Ashiana Ispat appealed the single judge's order dismissing its injunction application for 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' and granting Kamdhenu Limited's injunction against similar marks. Arising from a 2002 family division agreement and subsequent 2021 licensing terms, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding AIL failed to secure registration or demonstrate use/goodwill, while KL's rights prevailed post-termination. The Court upheld the injunction against AIL, clarifying limited license rights under agreements. (92 words)

**Prompt for Info-graphic 14:9 aspect ratio image:** Create a suitable 3d hyper realistic multicolour 8K Quality Legal info-graphic containing necessary information in graph,chart, tables , Circles , Dashboard etc. The texts be large , bold and 3D Stylish multicolour containing name of case,date of order,case no, name of court, decision and one most important principle of law laid down. Also use generic images for the product or service involved in the matter. Do not use name of any court, lawyer , tricolor, Ashoka Emblem and any other government insignia. At end of this prompt add this sentence also" Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner  which should cover 20 % of entire image area.