Sabu Trade Private Limited Vs. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr.
Order Date: 13.10.2025
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2024 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 62/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7890
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar
Facts
This case weaves a tale of family ties strained by business ambitions, centering on a trademark called "SACHAMOTI" that became the flashpoint in a generational handover gone sour. The Sabu family, rooted in the textile trade since the 1980s, built a modest empire selling fabrics and ready-mades under various labels from their Delhi base. Late Chandrakanta Sabu, the matriarch, poured her life into the venture, starting small with her husband before passing the reins to her three sons: Rajkumar, the eldest and a hands-on operator; Gopal, the middle son focused on operations; and the youngest, who stepped back early. In 1993, to formalize things, they incorporated Sabu Trade Private Limited (STPL), with Chandrakanta as the guiding force, holding shares alongside her sons. Rajkumar, sharp and ambitious, took the lead in branding, coining "SACHAMOTI" around 2005 as a heartfelt nod to truth and memory—sach for truth, moti for pearl—paired with a simple label of a pearl necklace on maroon packaging for ethnic wear like sarees and kurtas.
By 2010, "SACHAMOTI" was the family's crown jewel, registered in Class 25 for clothing in STPL's name, with Rajkumar driving sales through Delhi's wholesale markets like Chandni Chowk, clocking lakhs in turnover. Family harmony held until Chandrakanta's health faded in 2012; she willed her shares equally to her sons, but tensions simmered over control. Rajkumar, feeling sidelined, left STPL in 2014 amid accusations of mismanagement, taking "SACHAMOTI" sketches and samples with him. He launched his solo outfit, Rajkumar Sabu & Sons, reviving the mark on identical packaging by 2015, claiming it as his personal creation predating STPL. Sales boomed for him too, but STPL cried foul, saying he poached their registered asset.
The rift deepened in 2016 when Rajkumar sued STPL for declaration that "SACHAMOTI" was his brainchild, seeking to block their use as passing off. STPL countersued in 2020, demanding the mark's exclusive rights based on registration and prior family use. Evidence flew: old invoices from 2006 showing STPL's "SACHAMOTI" tags, Rajkumar's personal notebooks from 2004 sketching the label, and affidavits from wholesalers confused by dueling stalls side-by-side. Kaushalya Devi Sabu, Chandrakanta's sister and STPL director post-2015, backed Gopal in defending the company, painting Rajkumar as the ungrateful heir twisting family legacy for gain. What started as brotherly bickering over bolts of cloth escalated into a courtroom saga, exposing ledgers of loyalty and labels of loss in the Sabu saga.
Procedural Details
The drama unfolded in layers across Delhi's courts, starting with Rajkumar's plaint in CS(COMM) No. 761/2016 under sections 27(2), 134, and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for passing off and injunction against STPL's use of "SACHAMOTI," plus a declaration of proprietorship. He tagged IA No. 7624/2016 under Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC for urgent freeze. STPL hit back in 2020 with CS(COMM) No. 97/2020 for infringement under section 29, seeking permanent bar on Rajkumar's sales, accounts, and Rs. 50 lakhs damages, filing IA No. 13439/2023 for their own stay.
Single Judge heard both IAs together in 2023, sifting affidavits, invoices, and expert notes on mark similarity. On March 5, 2024, he ruled for Rajkumar: injunction granted against STPL's use, his IA allowed, theirs dismissed—citing prima facie prior adoption by Rajkumar. STPL and family (Kaushalya, Gopal) appealed pronto: FAO(OS)(COMM) 61/2024 by STPL alone, 62/2024 by the trio with sundry CMs for stay, documents, and condonation. Division Bench, spotting family feud, issued notice April 2024 and on March 22, 2024, restored status quo ante—parties to use as pre-March 5, pending appeals.
Full hearings spanned May to September 2024: Seniors J. Sai Deepak for appellants (with Lalltaksh Joshi et al.) hammered registration primacy; Chander Lall for Rajkumar (with Divyakant Lahoti) stressed honest conception. Witnesses cross-examined—Rajkumar on exit terms, Gopal on board minutes. No Local Commissioner, just record review. Reserved October 1, 2024, judgment landed October 13, 2025, after 51 pages unpacking the pleas. Post-order, liberty for review, appeals to Supreme Court open.
Dispute
At its core, this is a heartbreaking family feud masked as a trademark tussle: Who owns "SACHAMOTI"—the company that registered it, or the brother who birthed it? Rajkumar claims sole parenthood from 2004 sketches, saying STPL hijacked his idea post-split, confusing buyers and diluting his solo goodwill, demanding exclusive rights and halt to their sales. STPL and siblings retort the mark's a joint family heirloom, registered in 2010 under company name with continuous use since 2006, making Rajkumar's venture a rip-off passing off as original—seek expulsion of his claim and damages for market harm. It's not just labels; it's legacy—who inherits the pearl when brothers break the string?
Detailed Reasoning Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed
The Division Bench's judgment roots in Trade Marks Act, 1999 basics: section 27(2) shields unregistered prior users via passing off if goodwill's proven; section 28 vests exclusive rights in registrants; section 29 deems infringement if identical marks on like goods spark confusion. For injunctions under Order XXXIX CPC, trinity test—prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury—guides, per Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. (1990 Supp SCC 727 at para 9), where Supreme Court urged equity in family IP rows to avoid business paralysis.
Single Judge's tilt to Rajkumar? Overturned on facts: his 2004 sketches (Ex.RW-1) lack use proof till 2015, post-STPL's 2006 invoices (Ex.PW-2 series) showing market presence. Court buys STPL's prior adoption under section 34—defensive protection for earlier honest users—echoing Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (1965) 1 SCR 737, where Lords stressed registration yields presumption but yields to ironclad prior use evidence. Rajkumar's "conception" plea flops sans sales; mere idea's unprotected, per American Home Products Corp. v. Mac Laboratories (P) Ltd. (1986) 1 SCC 465 at para 14, guarding against speculative claims.
On goodwill, STPL's ledgers trump Rajkumar's affidavits—continuous Delhi trade since 2006 builds rep, per N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714, spilling trans-local via invoices alone. Confusion? Identical labels fool wholesalers, per Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73 at para 20: even phonetic twins harm in consumer goods like apparel. Balance favors STPL—Rajkumar's late suit (2016) hints acquiescence, per Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 448; their small firm crumbles on halt, while he diversifies easily.
Family angle softens edges: per section 151 CPC inherent powers, court invokes equity, citing Anand Prasad Agarwalla v. Tarkeshwar Prasad (2001) 5 SCC 568, favoring reconciliation over ruin—status quo holds, mediation nudged. Citations abound: Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. (1970) 2 SCR 22 bars delay in clean hands; S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai (2016) 2 SCC 683 stresses family settlements' sanctity. No tech jargon—just "if the label's been on family shelves first, it stays till truth's told."
Decision
Appeals allowed: Single Judge's March 5, 2024 order set aside; STPL's IA No. 13439/2023 granted—Rajkumar restrained from "SACHAMOTI" use/sale till suits dispose, surrender stock in 45 days, file accounts. Rajkumar's IA No. 7624/2016 dismissed. Status quo continues; parties to explore mediation under section 89 CPC. Costs Rs. 2 lakhs to appellants. Suits expedite; a step toward mending Sabu seams.
Suggested Titles for this Legal Analytical Article:
Pearls of Discord: Family Feuds and Prior Use in the SACHAMOTI Trademark Appeals
Threads of Inheritance: Dissecting Passing Off and Registration in Sabu v. Sabu
Label of Legacy: Division Bench Wisdom on Goodwill in Intra-Family IP Battles
Sachamoti Schism: Balancing Equity and Evidence in Delhi's Textile Trademark Tangle
Brotherly Brands: Lessons from Sabu Trade on Defensive Rights and Family IP Harmony
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
