Introduction
Factual Background
Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, was established on October 28, 1999, claiming to be the prior user and registered proprietor of the marks "VASUNDHRA" and "VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS" for jewellery and related goods in Class 14. The appellant asserts continuous user and substantial promotional activities, presenting figures of turnover and advertisement expenses from its inception. Contrastingly, the respondents—M/S Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP and its predecessor entities—trace their use of the mark "VASUNDHARA" to 2001, originally as the trading name of Ms. Vasundhara Mantri. The respondents support their bona fide adoption of the mark, claiming registration of trademark and copyright over the stylized "VASUNDHARA" and a history of business activities and publicity.
The appellant accused the respondents of using marks identical or deceptively similar to its own, particularly upon discovering the use of “VASUNDHARA” in 2019 and associated domain names and social media handles. Importantly, the respondents emphasize that "VASUNDHARA" is the first name of the proprietor and highlight their own trademark registrations, asserting honest and concurrent use.
Procedural Background
The dispute began with the appellant filing a suit (CS (COMM) 161/2022) seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents’ use of the allegedly infringing marks. The suit was accompanied by an interlocutory application (IA 4154/2022) for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the interim application, primarily on the grounds that both parties held registrations, the use was bona fide, and that there was no sufficient similarity or risk of confusion. Aggrieved by this, the appellant instituted the present appeal (FAO(OS) (COMM) 232/2023) before the Division Bench, contesting the findings and seeking interlocutory relief.
Core Dispute
The central dispute revolves around whether the respondents’ use of the mark "VASUNDHARA" constitutes passing off or infringement of the appellant’s trademarks "VASUNDHRA" and "VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS." This extends into the sub-issues of (a) prior use and accrual of goodwill by the appellant, (b) bona fide use of personal name by the respondents, (c) similarity and likelihood of confusion between the respective marks, and (d) whether Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which protects bona fide use of one’s own name, applies to cases of passing off as well as infringement, specifically when the mark used is only a part of the full name and by a corporate entity as an assignee of an individual.
Discussion on Judgments
A diverse set of judgments and authorities shaped the arguments and reasoning in this case. The following cases were cited, along with the context of their reference:
-
Precious Jewels v Varun Gems, (2015) 1 SCC 160: Cited to underscore the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 35, holding that bona fide use of one’s surname by a business entity, where connected to ownership, cannot be restrained through an injunction—even where confusion may arise.
-
Goenka Institute of Education and Research v Anjani Kumar Goenka, 2009 SCC Online Del 1691: The Division Bench had previously commented that Section 35 applies to full names and only to natural persons, not legal entities. However, this was interpreted as obiter and not followed strictly in the present matter.
-
Vasundhra Jewellers (P) Ltd v Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani, 2022 SCC Online Del 3370: Used by the respondents to posit that "Vasundhara" is a generic and common name, and exclusivity cannot be claimed. The appellant attempted to distinguish this judgment, noting that it addressed infringement and not passing off.
-
S. Syed Mohideen v P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683: Referenced for the legal position that where two marks are both registered, actions for infringement may not sustain between them, shifting focus to passing off.
-
Wander Ltd v Antox India Pvt Ltd, 1990 Supp SCC 727: Cited for the appellate standard in reviewing interlocutory orders—namely, that appeals are “on principle” and should not substitute judicial discretion without error of law or perversity.
-
Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v Pothan Joseph, AIR 1960 SC 1156: Enunciated standards on intervention in appeals against discretionary orders, cited for reinforcing the narrow scope of appellate interference.
-
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v Prius Auto Industries Ltd, (2018) 2 SCC 1: Set out the principles of passing off, requiring proof of prior and substantial goodwill.
-
Satyam Infoway Ltd v Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd, (2004) 6 SCC 145 and Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (2001) 5 SCC 73: Both cited in context of sustaining actions for passing off based on primacy of goodwill.
-
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate (P) Ltd v Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, (2024) 2 SCC 577: The Supreme Court clarified the need for actual proof of sales, promotion and advertising for establishing goodwill.
-
Raman Kwatra v KEI Industries Ltd., (2023) 93 PTC 485: Cited for the principle of estoppel—where a party has previously asserted dissimilarity between marks before the Trade Marks Registry, they cannot take the contrary stand for interim relief.
-
Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90 and Laxmikant V. Patel v Chetanbhai Shah (2002) 3 SCC 65: Cited for the inappropriateness of denying interlocutory relief solely on the basis of longevity of the defendant’s use when a prima facie case is made out.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Division Bench proceeded to dissect the arguments methodically. The Court unequivocally rejected the appellant’s submission that Section 35 applied only to infringement and not passing off cases. By examining the statute, particularly Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, the Bench held that both infringement and passing off suits are covered, and Section 35’s protection extends to all reliefs including injunctions in passing off actions.
On the question of applicability to corporate entities and use of part versus full name, the Court found that as Respondent 1 had succeeded to the rights of an individual—Ms. Vasundhara Mantri—through assignment, the benefit of Section 35 extended to the LLP as assignee-in-interest. The Bench refused to read any limitation into the statute confining the protection to the use of a full name, thereby recognizing that “VASUNDHARA” as a first name qualifies for protection under Section 35 if used bona fide.
The judges also evaluated whether the appellant had established sufficient goodwill in the mark “VASUNDHRA” prior to the respondents’ use beginning in June 2001. The evidence of turnover and promotional expenses was found insufficient for establishing perceptible goodwill within the short prior period, mainly 1999-2001. Further, the respondents had used the mark openly for at least 17 years before litigation was initiated, militating against the appellant’s claim of irreparable harm or exclusive rights.
The Court additionally addressed the principle of estoppel, holding that because the appellant had previously claimed before the Trade Marks Registry that the marks in contention were not similar, it was precluded from asserting otherwise in subsequent judicial proceedings. The Division Bench agreed with the reasoning of the Single Judge, noting no error of law or arbitrary exercise of discretion.
Finally, regarding balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the Bench was satisfied that no interim injunction could be justified where the respondents’ user substantially preceded the challenge and the appellant failed to demonstrate risk of irreparable loss.
Final Decision
The Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal. It affirmed the Single Judge’s order, upholding the respondents’ right to use the mark “VASUNDHARA” based on the protections of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act and upon finding no sufficient basis for interlocutory injunction, either on the ground of infringement or passing off. The Court held that the appellant did not establish sufficient goodwill in the mark prior to the respondents’ adoption and rejected all grounds of challenge.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment makes several critical contributions to the law:
-
It clarifies that Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act operates as a bar to injunctions not only in infringement actions but also for passing off, provided bona fide use of a personal name, whether in full or part, is established.
-
The protection under Section 35 is not strictly limited to use by natural persons but extends to corporate entities who inherit the rights by assignment from individuals.
-
For passing off actions, the plaintiff must establish substantial prior goodwill before the defendant’s adoption of the mark.
-
Statements made before authorities like the Trade Marks Registry regarding similarity of marks can estop parties from contradicting those assertions in subsequent judicial proceedings, even if the application did not lead to registration.
-
Priority of use is insufficient without proven goodwill, and longevity of defendant’s use can be an important factor in denying interlocutory relief.
Case Details
Case Title: Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP & Anr.
Date of Order: August 18, 2025
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 232/2023 & CM APPL. 55117/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7193-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
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
Suitable Titles for This Article for Publication in Law Journal
-
Interplay of Bona Fide Personal Name Use and Passing Off: Analysis of Vasundhra Jewellers v Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP
-
Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act: Scope, Application, and Judicial Interpretation in Jewellery Trademark Litigation
-
Estoppel and Priority of Goodwill in Indian Trademark Law: A Case Study from the High Court of Delhi
-
Revisiting the Protection of Personal Names in Trademark Disputes: Lessons from Vasundhra Jewellers v Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP
-
Passing Off, Infringement, and Corporate Name Use – Judicial Insights and Legal Precedents in 2025 Delhi High Court Decision
