Trademark Clash: Delhi High Court Stays Injunction Against ‘Cheetal’ Mark
Factual Background
Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. and Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. are both engaged in the rice business, selling under the trademarks "Cheetal" and "Double Deer," respectively. The respondent claimed exclusive rights over the "Double Deer" trademark and alleged that the appellant’s "Cheetal" mark infringed upon its rights, leading to consumer confusion and deception. The dispute arose when the respondent sought an injunction against the appellant's use of the "Cheetal" mark.
Procedural Background
The respondent filed CS (COMM) No.709/2023 before the District Judge (Commercial Court), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. The Commercial Court granted an injunction on 6 November 2024, restraining the appellant from using the "Cheetal" mark. Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. challenged this order in the Delhi High Court through FAO (COMM) 79/2025. The appellant also sought condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal, which the Court allowed.
Provisions of Law Referred and Their Context
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were invoked by the respondent to obtain an interim injunction against the appellant. Section 28(3) and Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, were relevant in determining whether a suit for infringement could lie against a registered proprietor of a trademark. The appellant argued that its registration of the "Cheetal" mark since 2007 granted it exclusive rights, while the respondent contended that the mark was deceptively similar to its own.
Judgments Referred with Complete Citation and Context
The respondent relied on Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. Mysore (1972) 1 SCC 618, National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Brothers Ltd. (1953) 1 SCC 794, South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. (2015) 61 PTC 231, and Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Sita Chawal Udyog Mill (2010) 44 PTC 293 to establish that deceptive similarity is sufficient to warrant an injunction. The appellant argued that there was no phonetic or visual similarity between "Cheetal" and "Double Deer," and that consumer confusion was unlikely.
Reasoning of the Court
The Delhi High Court found that the appellant had a registered trademark for "Cheetal" since 2007, which was valid and subsisting. It noted that the respondent had been aware of this registration since 2012 but only filed the suit in 2023, raising concerns about delay. The Court also observed that "Cheetal" and "Double Deer" were phonetically and visually distinct, and there was no prima facie case for consumer confusion. Given the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, the Court found merit in granting interim relief to the appellant.
Decision:
The Delhi High Court stayed the operation of the injunction order dated 6 November 2024, allowing the appellant to continue using the "Cheetal" mark until the next hearing.
Case Title:Bhole Nath Foods Ltd. Vs. Kirorimal Kashiram Marketing and Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
Date of Order:18 March 2025
Case Number:FAO (COMM) 79/2025
Name of Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon’ble Judges:Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Digpaul
