Order Date: 9 September, 2025
Case Number: Interim Application (Lodging) No. 22614 of 2022 in Commercial IP Suit No. 348 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:14740
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Detailed and Comprehensive Analytical Legal Summary
Facts of the Case
This case involves a dispute over trademarks, copyrights, and passing off in the garment business. The plaintiffs, Velji Karamshi Vaid and another (referred to as Plaintiffs), run a business manufacturing and selling ready-made clothes under the brands "V3" and "Volume 3". They claim they started using these marks in 2007 for "Volume 3" and officially adopted "V3" in 2016 because customers began shortening "Volume 3" to "V3". The Plaintiffs have registered trademarks for device marks (like logos) including the words "V3" and "Volume 3" in Class 25 (for clothing) and Class 35 (for retail services). These registrations are still valid. They say their business has grown across India and internationally, with total sales of about Rs. 7.23 crores (around 7 million rupees) from selling over 190,000 pieces of clothing. However, they didn't provide certified sales documents or invoices to prove this in the initial complaint.
The defendants are seven in total: Defendant No. 1 is V3 Fashion (a partnership firm), Defendants Nos. 2-6 are its partners or related firms, and Defendant No. 7 is a separate person who once ran a business called V3 Fashion as a sole proprietorship. The Plaintiffs accuse the defendants of using similar marks: "V3 Fashion" (Impugned Mark 1), "V3 Style" (Impugned Mark 2), and "Volume 4" (Impugned Mark 3). These are used for the same type of clothes, sold in the same building and floor as the Plaintiffs' shop.
The Plaintiffs first noticed Defendant No. 7 using "V3" in 2018. They talked to him, and he promised to stop. Defendant No. 7's trademark application was rejected in 2019. For Defendants Nos. 1-6, the Plaintiffs say they applied for trademarks in 2019 and 2021 on a "proposed to be used" basis (meaning they weren't using it yet), but these were rejected or opposed. Despite rejections, Defendants Nos. 1-6 kept using the marks. The Plaintiffs sent cease-and-desist letters in 2019, but the defendants replied claiming prior use since 2017. Defendants Nos. 1-6 also filed to cancel the Plaintiffs' trademark in 2022, saying the Plaintiffs' mark confuses people with theirs.
Defendants Nos. 1-6 defended by saying they created "V3" using the first letter of one partner's name (V) and the number 3 for three partners, starting in 2017. They provided invoices from 2017-2022 to prove prior use and claimed sales of over Rs. 5.6 crores in 2021-22. They got copyright for their logo artwork. Defendant No. 7 supported the Plaintiffs, saying Defendants Nos. 2-3 (his former partners) took over his business without permission in 2019, faked documents using his GST number and details, and that he stopped using "V3" in 2020 after canceling his GST. He filed a police complaint against them for forgery in 2023.
Both sides filed affidavits (sworn statements) with changing stories. The Plaintiffs later found old invoices from 2010-11 in a rejoinder (reply) affidavit. Defendants Nos. 1-6 said the Plaintiffs hid facts, like applying for registration in 2018 as "proposed to be used" while claiming use since 2016 in the complaint.
The Dispute
The main dispute is whether Defendants Nos. 1-6 are infringing the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and copyrights, or passing off their clothes as the Plaintiffs' by using similar marks like "V3 Fashion" and "V3 Style". The Plaintiffs want a temporary injunction (court order to stop) the defendants from using these marks until the full trial.
Key issues:
Are the marks similar enough to cause confusion? (Infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which says using a similar mark for same goods without permission is infringement if it confuses people.)
Who used the marks first? (Defendants claim prior use under Section 34, which protects honest prior users even against registered owners.)
Is there passing off? (Common law claim: Plaintiffs must prove their mark has goodwill, defendants are misrepresenting, and it causes damage.)
Did both sides hide facts or lie, affecting their right to court relief? (Under equity principles, courts won't help those with "unclean hands".)
The Plaintiffs rely on their registrations (valid under Section 28, giving exclusive rights) and say the defendants' marks are deceptively similar. Defendants say no exclusivity over "V3" alone (under Section 17, registration is for the whole label, not parts), marks are different, and they are prior users. They point to other "V3" marks registered by third parties.
Detailed Reasoning
The court analyzed the case step by step, keeping in mind that this is an interim (temporary) stage under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), where the court looks for a prima facie (initial) case, balance of convenience (who suffers more without relief), and irreparable harm (damage that can't be fixed with money). Evidence isn't fully tested yet; a full trial is needed.
Plaintiffs' Registrations and Claims:
The Plaintiffs have valid registrations for device marks (logos) with "V3" and "Volume 3". Under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, this gives them exclusive rights to use them for clothes.
But the court noted inconsistencies: The 2018 application said "proposed to be used" (meaning not in use yet), but the complaint claimed use since 2016. In a reply to the trademark office, they claimed use since September 2018. Later, they said 2010. No invoices were attached to prove use. The court said this looks like hiding facts to counter the defendants' prior use claim.
In the trademark office reply (examination report), the Plaintiffs said their mark is a "composite label" (whole design) and doesn't conflict with others like "V3 Fashion Studio" or "V3 Jeans". But now they oppose similar marks. The court cited Phonepe Private Limited vs Resilient Innovations Private Limited (2023 SCC Online Bom 764), saying hiding your own past statements disentitles you to interim relief.
Defendants' Defenses and Inconsistencies:
Defendants Nos. 1-6 claimed prior use since 2017 with invoices. But their 2019 application said "proposed to be used". The 2022 application changed to use since 2017. Invoices from 2017-2018 used Defendant No. 7's GST and details, supporting Defendant No. 7's claim of forgery. No explanation for this. Invoices from 2019 used a new GST, suggesting they started then.
The court said these invoices seem fake, especially since Defendant No. 1 formed in November 2017, but has a November 6, 2017 invoice. Defendant No. 7's unrefuted affidavit damaged their case.
In court, they said marks are not similar and no confusion. But in their cancellation application against Plaintiffs, they said "V3" is distinctive and any similar use confuses people. This contradictory stand hurts their credibility.
Similarity of Marks (Infringement Analysis):
Under Section 2(1)(h) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, marks are "deceptively similar" if they can confuse average buyers. The court compared: Plaintiffs' marks are "V3" and "Volume 3" devices; defendants' are "V3 Fashion" and "V3 Style".
But due to doubts on who used first, the court couldn't decide infringement prima facie. Evidence needed. Also, under Section 17, no exclusivity over "V3" alone if registered as a device. Third-party "V3" marks exist, weakening exclusivity.
Prior Use and Honest Adoption:
Under Section 34, prior continuous users are protected if honest. But defendants' prior use proof is doubtful. Plaintiffs' use dates vary too. Court said neither side's user date is reliable without trial evidence.
Passing Off Claim:
To win passing off, Plaintiffs need: (a) goodwill/reputation, (b) misrepresentation by defendants, (c) damage (from Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd vs Borden Inc, 1990, known as the "Jif Lemon" case).
Plaintiffs claimed goodwill with Rs. 7.23 crores sales, but no certified proof. No invoices or accountant statements. Court said without this, no prima facie goodwill. Products show Plaintiffs use "V3 Volume 3" differently from registration, and defendants' designs don't copy to pass off.
Unclean Hands and Equity:
Both sides suppressed facts and changed stories. Court cited Ramjas Foundation vs Union of India (2010) and Dalip Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2010): Those without clean hands don't get equitable relief like injunctions.
Plaintiffs hid application details and past statements. Defendants faked documents and contradicted themselves. Balance of convenience: No clear winner; trial needed. No irreparable harm shown.
Other Points:
Defendant No. 7 stopped using the mark and supports Plaintiffs. Defendants withdrew "Volume 4" application.
Court relied on cases like Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt Ltd vs Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani (2022) for no exclusivity on parts of marks, and others for prior use and unclean hands.
Decision
The court dismissed the interim application. No temporary injunction was granted to stop Defendants Nos. 1-6 from using the marks. The case will go to full trial for evidence. The judge said both sides' stories are unreliable at this stage, and the Plaintiffs aren't entitled to discretionary relief due to hiding facts.
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
Suggested 10 Suitable Titles for This Legal Article
Unclean Hands in Trademark Battles: Analyzing the Bombay High Court's Denial of Interim Relief in Velji Karamshi Vaid Case
V3 Trademark Dispute: Why the Court Refused to Stop Alleged Infringers at the Interim Stage
Prior Use vs. Registration: Lessons from the Velji Karamshi Vaid vs V3 Fashion Trademark Infringement Suit
Contradictory Claims and Suppressed Facts: A Deep Dive into the Bombay High Court's Ruling on Passing Off
The Perils of Inconsistent Stories in IP Litigation: Insights from the 2025 Bombay High Court Order
Trademark Infringement Denied: How Unreliable Evidence Led to No Injunction in Garment Brand Fight
V3 vs V3 Fashion: Bombay High Court's Take on Deceptive Similarity and Equity in IP Cases
Forgery Allegations and Changing Dates: Key Reasons for Dismissing Interim Relief in Trademark Dispute
Passing Off in the Fashion Industry: A Case Study on Goodwill, Misrepresentation, and Court Scrutiny
Bombay High Court on Clean Hands Doctrine: Why Both Sides Lost in the Velji Karamshi Vaid Trademark Battle
