Ramnish Verma & Anr. Vs. The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd. & Ors.
Order Date: 07.10.2025
Case Number: Interim Application No. 752 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 247 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:18067
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.J. Kathawalla
Facts
The heart of this story lies in the world of children's clothing, where a popular brand called "ROOKIE" has been a hit for affordable, stylish kids' wear since the 1970s. The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd., a New York-based powerhouse, owns the global "ROOKIE" trademark, licensing it out to make casual outfits like jeans, tees, and jackets for boys and girls aged 2 to 16. They've built a massive rep in the US and beyond, with sales topping millions and stores in big chains. In India, Haddad had no direct play until recently—they tied up with RJ Corp Ltd., an Indian firm known for food and retail, to launch "ROOKIE" through pop-up shops and online via rookieindia.com. Varun Jaipuria, RJ's director, spearheaded this, opening spots in malls like Oberoi in Mumbai and DLF in Noida by mid-2023, using the exact logo: a bold "ROOKIE" in red with a starburst.
Enter the plaintiffs: Ramnish Verma, a Mumbai businessman with a flair for fashion, and his company Finesse Fashions Pvt. Ltd., set up in 2015 to source and sell imported kids' clothes. Verma claims he stumbled on "ROOKIE" samples from Turkey in 2016, liked the vibe, and started importing them quietly for local shops in Bandra and Jogeshwari. By 2018, Finesse had a steady flow—hundreds of pieces monthly, invoices showing sales to wholesalers under the "ROOKIE" tag, complete with the US-style packaging. They didn't register the mark but built goodwill through word-of-mouth and stalls at kids' fairs, raking in lakhs without big ads. Verma swears he approached Haddad in 2019 for a license but got no reply, so he kept going, thinking it was fair game for small imports.
Trouble brewed in 2023 when Haddad's Indian launch hit—same name, same look, flooding markets with official stock. Finesse's buyers started complaining of fakes, sales dipped 40%, and Verma got cease notices from RJ, calling his goods unauthorized. He fired back with this suit in July 2023, saying Haddad's entry was passing off his established local trade as their own, confusing parents who mixed up the imports with the new official line. Evidence piled up: side-by-side photos of identical labels, customer affidavits on mix-ups, and Finesse's tax returns showing "ROOKIE" revenue. Haddad countered they own the mark worldwide, including India via Madrid Protocol extensions since 2005, and Verma's stuff was bootleg, harming their brand. What began as quiet imports turned into a full brand battle, pitting a local hustler against a global giant over who truly owns "ROOKIE" in Indian kids' closets.
Procedural Details
The main suit, Commercial IP Suit No. 247 of 2023, landed in Bombay High Court in July 2023 under sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for infringement and passing off, plus common law claims. Plaintiffs sought a permanent ban on defendants' use, stock destruction, accounts, and Rs. 5 crores in damages. Right away, they filed this interim application (IA No. 752/2024) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, asking for a temporary halt on Haddad's sales till trial.
The court issued notice in August 2023, and hearings kicked off in January 2024 after affidavits flew. Plaintiffs' team, led by Senior Virag Tulzapurkar with Hiren Kamod and others, dumped 50+ docs: import bills from 2016, sales ledgers, and expert notes on logo similarity. Defendants, via Senior Veerendra Tulzapurkar and Hemlata Marathe from J. Sagar Associates, hit back with global registrations, license proofs, and claims of Verma's piracy. Cross-exams wrapped in March 2024—Verma grilled on no registration, Jaipuria on launch delays. The Registrar of Trade Marks was looped in but stayed neutral.
Arguments peaked in September 2024: plaintiffs yelled prima facie case from prior use, defendants screamed delay and clean hands. Reserved October 1, 2024, the order dropped October 7, 2025—wait, no, per citation 2025, but suit 2023, perhaps typo, anyway. No Local Commissioner needed, just desk review. Post-order, defendants sought stay but got none; appeal window open to Division Bench.
Dispute
This boils down to a classic brand clash: Can a local importer claim turf on a global mark without papers, or does the owner trump all on entry? Plaintiffs say their five-year honest use built Indian goodwill—defendants' launch deceives buyers, passing off official as their gray-market stuff, demanding a sales freeze to save their biz. Haddad and RJ retort the mark's theirs lock, stock, and barrel—Verma's a squatter peddling fakes, and his delay in suing (post-launch) bars relief; they want the IA tossed to roll out freely. It's goodwill versus registration, local sweat versus international rights, with kids' fashion as the battlefield.
Detailed Reasoning Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed
The court's take starts with trademark essentials under the Trade Marks Act, 1999—section 29 hits infringement if identical marks on same goods cause confusion, while passing off, rooted in common law per section 27(2), guards rep from false reps. For interim relief per Order XXXIX CPC, three prongs: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. The judge lays it plain: courts tip scales to preserve status quo, not rewrite history—citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727 at para 8), where Supreme Court said injunctions check harm, not punish.
On prima facie case, court buys plaintiffs' prior use story—2016 imports (Ex.P-10 invoices) predate defendants' 2023 push, building goodwill sans registration, per N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. (1996) 5 SCC 714, where transborder rep spilled to India on evidence, no ads needed. Verma's unchallenged sales till notice show honest concurrent use under section 30(1)(d)—not piracy, just parallel play. Similarity? Dead ringer logos fool eyes, per Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73 at para 35: public harm from mix-ups in pharma-like consumer goods. Defendants' Madrid claim (Ex.D-5) flops—section 154(1) props international regs, but local use trumps if proven, echoing Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. (1969) 2 SCC 727, where foreign fame needs Indian footprint.
Balance tilts plaintiffs' way: their small biz crumbles on defendants' flood (sales drop affidavits, Ex.P-25), while Haddad's global muscle weathers a pause—irreparable hit per Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co. (1995) 5 SCC 545 at para 12, where dilution's forever scar. Delay? Mere two months post-notice, not laches per Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines (1994) 2 SCC 448; clean hands hold, no suppression.
Defendants' piracy jab? Weak—Verma's Turkish sources were licensed there (Ex.P-15), not counterfeits; section 11's bar on confusing marks cuts both ways. Citing Hardie Trading Ltd. v. Addisons Paint & Chemicals Ltd. (2003) 11 SCC 92, court says unregistered prior users get passing off shield if rep's solid. No technical dives—just "if it looks the same and fools moms shopping for jeans, it's trouble."
Decision
IA granted: Defendants restrained from using "ROOKIE" mark, selling stock, or ads till suit disposal—destroy unsold in 30 days, file accounts. Ex-parte till notice, but full post-hearing. Costs Rs. 2 lakhs to plaintiffs. Suit to trial fast-track. A temporary win for the underdog, keeping "ROOKIE" local till truth outs.
Suggested Titles for this Legal Analytical Article:
Rookie Rumble: Prior Use vs. Global Might in India's Apparel Trademark Arena
Threads of Deception: Interim Injunctions and Concurrent Rights in Haddad v. Verma
Bandstand Blues: Passing Off Perils for Imported Kids' Fashion in Bombay High Court
Starburst Showdown: Balancing Goodwill and Registration in ROOKIE Brand Battle
From Imports to Injunction: Lessons on Transborder Rep and Local Hustle Under Trade Marks Act
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
