Saurabh Gupta, owner of the registered trademark OPAL in Class 3 since 1992 for cosmetics with substantial goodwill and turnover exceeding ₹28 crores by 2023-24, sued Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. (SPL) in 2024 alleging infringement and passing off by SPL's use of SHEOPAL’S mark launched in the market around that time despite SPL having adopted the mark in 2016, applied for registration in Class 3 in 2018 and 2022 (opposed by Saurabh) and holding registration in Class 5 since 2018. The Commercial Court initially granted ex-parte injunction in favour of Saurabh in August 2024 but vacated it in September 2024; on appeal, a Division Bench remanded the matter in November 2024 criticising dissection of the mark, following which the Commercial Court in April 2025 vacated the injunction citing delay of six years in filing suit despite knowledge of trademark applications and applying dominant part test to find deceptive similarity yet denying relief on account of laches and prejudice to SPL. In cross-appeals, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court disagreed with the Commercial Court's application of anti-dissection and dominant part principles, held that OPAL and SHEOPAL’S were neither visually nor phonetically similar with no likelihood of confusion when viewed as wholes, found no infringement or passing off, upheld vacation of injunction but on the ground of absence of deceptive similarity rather than delay, and dismissed Saurabh's appeal while allowing SPL's appeal to set aside adverse findings on merits.
- Anti-dissection rule requires comparison of competing marks in their entirety as average consumers perceive them, without breaking into components, and dominant part test applies only exceptionally where one element overwhelmingly dominates perception (Paras 13.3-13.10).
- Marks OPAL and SHEOPAL’S are neither visually, structurally nor phonetically similar; prefix SHE in SHEOPAL’S sufficiently distinguishes the marks as wholes, resulting in no likelihood of confusion or deception (Paras 13-20).
- No infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 or passing off established where marks lack deceptive similarity despite identical/similar goods in Class 3 (Paras 21-22).
- Delay/laches not relied upon as primary ground but noted that knowledge of trademark application does not necessarily imply knowledge of actual use in market (Paras 23-25).
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta Vs. Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. Order Date: 26 November 2025 Case Numbers: FAO (COMM) 175/2025 & CM APPL. 41218/2025 and FAO (COMM) 187/2025, CM APPL. 43596/2025 & CM APPL. 43597/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10443-DB Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
[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]
