Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy as court receiver for partnership firm M/s Ahmed Oomerbhoy established in 1930s using registered trademark POSTMAN since 1950s for edible groundnut oil with extensive goodwill filed CS(COMM) 361/2018 against Gautam Tank and Jagdamba Vegetable Products alleging infringement by using SUPER POSTMAN since 2004 with similar blue-yellow packaging color scheme and bottle shape causing confusion ex parte injunction granted 30.05.2005 confirmed 20.12.2007.
Suit dismissed 24.12.2010 for lack of evidence restored 27.07.2012 on appeal with costs evidence recorded arguments heard in 2023.
Court suo moto examined defendants' 2023 registration validity under Section 57 Trade Marks Act 1999 amid IAs for stay rectification clarification injunction revival.
The court reasoned plaintiff retained proprietorship despite non-use since 2000 due to internal partner disputes not abandonment as pursued protection no acquiescence or delay
Defendants' mark deceptively similar adopted dishonestly registration invalid contrary to Sections 9 11 Act interim injunction revived upon suit restoration suit maintainable under Section 124 not applicable rendition of accounts necessary for damages quantification.
Suit preliminarily decreed granting permanent injunction cancelling defendants' registration ordering accounts rendition passing off and damages quantification pending further hearing IAs disposed with clarifications.
Law Point:
Registered trademark not abandoned if non-use due to special circumstances like internal disputes, intention to resume inferred from protective actions:
Deceptive similarity assessed holistically, adding prefix like 'SUPER' insufficient to distinguish if essential feature copied:
Stray third-party use no defense for deliberate infringer:
Interim injunction revives upon suit restoration unless expressly excluded:
Case Detail:Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy Vs Sh. Gautam Tank & Ors., Order date: 09 January 2026, Case Number: CS(COMM) 361/2018:2026:DHC: 154:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.
[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]
