Sunil Jain appealed against the Registrar's order dated 17.06.2025 allowing registration of Respondent No.2's trademark application No. 6480151 for 'Secure Fencing' in Class 7 despite the appellant's opposition. The appellant and Respondent No.2, being brothers, jointly used the mark 'Secure Fencing' from 2013 pursuant to a family business, and under an oral family settlement in 2019 agreed that the appellant would exclusively own 'Secure Fencing' while Respondent No.2 would own 'Kisaan Jaali and Fencing'. Respondent No.2 surreptitiously obtained registrations for 'Secure Fencing' and in one proceeding admitted the appellant's exclusive rights, yet proceeded with the opposed application. The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence of the family settlement, Respondent No.2's inconsistent stand, and likelihood of confusion, granted interim injunction restraining Respondent No.2 from using 'Secure Fencing' pending the appeal, and directed expeditious disposal.
- Oral family settlements dividing trademark rights in a family business are enforceable and can form the basis for granting interim relief in trademark opposition appeals where prima facie evidence supports exclusive allocation to one party (Order paras on family settlement and prima facie case).
- Inconsistent admissions by a party in earlier trademark proceedings regarding exclusive ownership of a mark bind them and constitute strong prima facie evidence against subsequent contradictory applications (Order paras on Respondent No.2's admission in TM No. 5350849).
- Where parties are family members with prior joint use and a settlement allocating marks, surreptitious registration attempts by one party justify interim injunction to maintain status quo (Order paras on balance of convenience and irreparable harm).
Case Title: Sunil Jain Vs. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr. Order Date: December 17, 2025 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 60/2025 & I.A. 22422/2025 Neutral Citation: Not available in document Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
[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]
