### Introduction
The case of M/s Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. vs M/s Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, involves a significant dispute over the trademark "SALONI" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellants challenged an order from the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi, which upheld an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining them from using the "SALONI" trademark and device. This appeal, filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, addresses issues of trademark infringement, passing off, and the validity of interim reliefs in intellectual property disputes, providing a critical examination of competing claims to a registered mark.
### Factual Background
The appellants, M/s Nakoda Food Marketing and others, assert ownership of the registered trademark "SALONI" under Class 30 for cereal-based preparations, including namkeen, claiming continuous use over the past three decades. They operate a business centered on these products, establishing a significant market presence. The respondent, M/s Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, also claims proprietorship of the "SALONI" trademark and its device, including a pictorial label featuring a female figure, registered across various classes. The respondent alleges that the appellants' use of the mark infringes on its rights and constitutes passing off, leading to confusion among consumers. The dispute escalated when the respondent discovered the appellants' use of the mark, prompting legal action to protect its intellectual property.
### Procedural Background
The respondent initiated CS (COMM) No. 51/2024 before the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi, invoking Sections 134, 135, and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs against the appellants for trademark infringement and passing off. On January 30, 2024, the Commercial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the appellants' premises. The appellants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction, which was dismissed by an order dated May 1, 2024, confirming the interim relief. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants appealed to the High Court of Delhi, with the matter heard and decided orally on August 7, 2025, by Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla.
### Core Dispute
The central issue is whether the Commercial Court's order granting and upholding the ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellants was justified, given the competing claims to the "SALONI" trademark. The dispute focuses on determining the rightful owner of the mark, assessing the likelihood of confusion between the parties' uses, and evaluating the balance of convenience and irreparable harm. The appellants argue that their prior use and registration under Class 30 entitle them to continue, while the respondent contends that its broader registrations and device mark, including the female figure, establish superior rights, necessitating the injunction to prevent market confusion and loss of goodwill.
### Discussion on Judgments
The parties and court relied on several judicial precedents to support their positions. The appellants cited N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714, to argue that prior use of a trademark confers superior rights, challenging the respondent's claim based on later registrations. They also referenced S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683, to assert that passing off actions require proof of deception, which they denied. The respondent relied on Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, to support the injunction, arguing that similarity in marks and goods justifies interim relief to protect goodwill. The court drew on Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, to emphasize that delay alone does not bar injunctions if infringement is established, and referenced Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Delhi 19, to affirm that dishonest adoption strengthens the case for relief, influencing the judicial reasoning.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Om Prakash Shukla, delivering the oral judgment, conducted a thorough analysis of the trademark claims, focusing on the principles governing interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The court recognized the appellants' claim of three decades of use but found the respondent's registration of the "SALONI" device mark, including the female figure, to be prima facie valid and distinctive. The judge noted the similarity between the marks and the potential for consumer confusion, particularly given the overlapping nature of goods in Class 30. The balance of convenience was deemed to favor the respondent, as the appellants' continued use could cause irreparable harm to the respondent's goodwill, while the appellants could resume operations if their claim prevailed later. The court also considered the Local Commissioner's report, which supported the respondent's allegations, reinforcing the need for the injunction.
### Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal numbered FAO (COMM) 92/2024, upholding the Commercial Court's order dated May 1, 2024. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on January 30, 2024, and confirmed subsequently, was sustained, restraining the appellants from using the "SALONI" trademark and device. The court directed the matter to proceed to trial for a final determination of ownership and infringement, with the interim relief remaining in force pending further orders.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment reaffirms that interim injunctions in trademark disputes can be granted based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, even when prior use is claimed by the defendant, provided the plaintiff's registered mark and device show distinctiveness. It clarifies that the similarity of marks and potential consumer confusion outweigh delays in seeking relief, and the appointment of a Local Commissioner can substantiate infringement claims. The decision underscores the protective scope of registered trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, pending a full trial.
### Case Details
Case Title: M/s Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. vs M/s Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited
Date of Order: 07 August, 2025
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 92/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:56789
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Trademark Injunctions and Prior Use: Analyzing Nakoda Food v. Mahesh Edible Oil
2. Balancing Convenience in IP Disputes: The "SALONI" Trademark Case
3. Prima Facie Case in Trademark Law: Insights from the Delhi High Court
4. Passing Off and Device Marks: The Nakoda Food Marketing Judgment
5. Interim Relief in Trademark Conflicts: Lessons from Nakoda v. Mahesh Edible
6. Consumer Confusion and Trademark Protection: The "SALONI" Dispute Explored
7. Role of Local Commissioners in IP Litigation: The Nakoda Case Study
8. Registered Trademarks vs. Prior Use: Judicial Perspective in the "SALONI" Appeal
