Synertec Pty Ltd Vs. Union of India

Mistake of Patent Agent and Judicial Equity

Introduction:This matter concerns the deemed withdrawal of a patent application under Section 11B of the Patents Act, 1970, arising from a failure to file a request for examination (Form-18) within the statutory time limit. The judgment sheds light on how inadvertent mistakes of patent agents should be treated, the boundaries of statutory rigidity, and the balancing role of writ jurisdiction in preventing prejudice to a diligent patent applicant.

Facts of the Case:Synertec Pty Ltd, an Australian company, filed a patent application bearing no. 202217030233 in India, relating to a novel system and method for vaporising liquefied natural gas to remove inaccuracies in conventional approaches. The patent filing followed a series of earlier applications in Australia (27 November 2019) and under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (27 November 2020). The appointed Indian patent agent filed the national phase application on 26 May 2022, enclosing the complete specification and drawings. The application was thereafter published under Section 11A of the Patents Act on 9 September 2022.

The crux of the dispute arose when the patent agent emailed the petitioner on 12 October 2022, stating that the deadline for filing the request for examination was 27 November 2024. In reality, the correct statutory deadline was 27 November 2023. Due to this erroneous docketing, Synertec did not file Form-18 before the actual deadline. It was only after an enquiry email by the petitioner on 11 November 2024 that the agent realised the lapse. By this time, the Patent Office database reflected the application status as “deemed to be withdrawn” under Section 11B(4) of the Patents Act.

Procedural Details:Synertec approached the Delhi High Court by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking restoration of the application to its original status from “deemed to be withdrawn.” Both sides acknowledged that no physical or formal withdrawal order had been issued by the Patent Office; rather, the withdrawal was by operation of law due to failure to file the request for examination within statutory time. The respondents argued that the Controller's record was accurate and that no administrative error had been committed. The petitioner clarified that the failure was solely attributable to the patent agent’s docketing error and not due to any lack of intent or diligence on its part.

Nature of the Dispute:The legal dispute was not about the correctness of the statutory framework itself. Section 11B of the Patents Act clearly mandates that a patent application shall be examined only where the applicant or any interested person files a request for examination within the prescribed time. Non-compliance triggers an automatic statutory consequence of deemed withdrawal. The controversy revolved around whether writ jurisdiction could be exercised to restore the patent application in exceptional cases where a diligent applicant suffers due to the inadvertent mistake of its patent agent, without any negligence or intention to abandon.

The petitioner relied on two decisions of the Delhi High Court: European Union represented by the European Commission v. Union of India (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1793) and Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt Ltd v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Del 6956), where the Court had restored abandoned patent applications after finding that the failure arose solely due to inadvertent operational mistakes of patent agents despite diligence by the applicants. The petitioner argued that it had been proactively pursuing prosecution of the patent, had been granted a corresponding patent in the United States, and had consistently checked with the patent agent regarding compliance. The respondents submitted that while precedents vest discretion in the Court, they do not establish that the Patent Office acted incorrectly in recording the deemed withdrawal.

Detailed Judicial Reasoning:The Court began by reaffirming the statutory scheme. Under Section 11B of the Patents Act, read with Rule 24B of the Patent Rules 2003 (as applicable during the relevant period), a request for examination must be filed within forty-eight months from the priority date or the filing date, whichever is earlier. Synertec’s last date was therefore 27 November 2023. Since Form-18 was not filed, the deemed withdrawal was a lawful statutory consequence.

However, the Court emphasised that the legal consequence of deemed withdrawal should not overshadow the larger equity objective of ensuring that a patentee’s rights are not extinguished for no fault of their own. Drawing heavily from earlier precedents, the Court noted that an applicant who has demonstrated consistent diligence should not be permanently deprived of patent rights solely due to a patent agent’s inadvertent calculation error. The Court held that the email chronology placed on record showed continuous follow-up by the petitioner. Despite the error, the applicant took all reasonable actions within its power to pursue prosecution. Therefore, no intention to abandon could be inferred.

Citing European Union v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction may be invoked in extraordinary circumstances where abandonment stems from the professional lapse of an agent, not the applicant. The Court highlighted the similarity between a patent agent and an advocate representing litigants in civil or criminal court. Through judgments such as Smt. Lachi Tewari v. Director of Land Records and Rafiq v. Munshilal, the Supreme Court has consistently held that litigants should not suffer due to counsel’s inadvertent mistakes. Applying the same principle, the Court found that Synertec had been unfairly burdened with the consequence of deemed withdrawal.

At the same time, the Court cautioned that writ relief should not dilute legislative intent. Section 21(1) of the Patents Act and Rule 138 of the Patent Rules require strict adherence to statutory timelines, and writ restoration cannot become a general rule. It can be granted only in cases where intention, diligence, and absence of negligence are clearly established.

In the present case, the Court was satisfied that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated diligence, seriousness, and a continuing intention to prosecute the application. Its foreign patent activity reinforced the lack of intention to abandon. To deprive it of rights due to an error not attributable to it would be inequitable.

Final Decision:The writ petition was allowed. The Court set aside the status of “deemed to have been withdrawn” recorded against Patent Application No. 202217030233. The Indian Patent Office was directed to restore the application to its original status and allow the petitioner to file Form-18 (request for examination) within two weeks from the date of the order.

Case Title: Synertec Pty Ltd Vs. Union of India & Anr.

Order Date: 03 November 2025

Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 53/2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Hon'ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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

Ramji Lal Agarwal Vs. Sourav Agarwal

Commercial Disputes Under the Commercial Courts Act

FACTS:The litigation arose from a long-running business legacy of the Agarwal family that dealt in dry fruits, spices, dry vegetables and similar products under the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal”, established by late Mangi Lal Agarwal. Over the years, the business gained strong goodwill and reputation. After the death of key family members, the legal heirs executed a family arrangement dated 13 January 2017.

This family arrangement allotted various business establishments, particularly shop rooms and godowns used for the business, to different branches of the family. It allowed all branches to continue using the goodwill of the name “Sindharam Sanwarmal & Co.”, but included a clear covenant that no branch could run a business using this trade name within one kilometer of the two existing shop rooms at 43/44, Cotton Street, Kolkata. The plaintiff Ramji Lal Agarwal was allotted one of these shop rooms to run “Sindharam Sanwarmal & Co.” while the defendant’s father was allotted the other shop room to run “Shree Hanuman Stores.”

The present dispute began when the defendant Sourav Agarwal, instead of continuing business under the allotted trade name “Shree Hanuman Stores”, began running the same business from the same premises under the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal Mewawala”. The plaintiff claimed this violated the covenant against use of the trade name within 1 km of the existing shop rooms.

PROCEDURAL DETAILS:The plaintiff filed CS 126 of 2023 seeking various reliefs including mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction and damages. He also filed IA No. GA 1 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction against the defendant.

The defendant filed IA No. GA 2 of 2023 seeking dismissal of the suit on the ground that the issues involved were commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and therefore triable exclusively by a Commercial Court, not by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

On 12 March 2025, the Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s injunction application GA 1 of 2023 and allowed the defendant’s application GA 2 of 2023, holding that the dispute was commercial in nature and directing return of the plaint to be filed before the appropriate Commercial Court.

Two cross-appeals arose from this judgement. APOT 99 of 2025 was filed by the plaintiff, arguing that the dispute was purely about family settlement and not commercial. APOT 95 of 2025 was filed by the defendant, supporting the finding of lack of jurisdiction but alleging that the Trial Court should not have made findings on the merits once it decided it lacked jurisdiction.

CORE DISPUTE:The core question before the High Court was whether the suit CS 126 of 2023 arose out of a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. If it did, then the High Court exercising ordinary civil original jurisdiction had no power to entertain it, and only a designated Commercial Court could try the matter.

DETAILED JUDICIAL REASONING:The Court examined the family arrangement thoroughly. Although it referred to 26 immovable properties, the arrangement clearly stated that the parties were already separated in residence and mess. Therefore, the division pertained primarily to business establishments — shop rooms, godowns and other premises exclusively used in trade and commerce under the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal.”

The Court noted that under Clause 3, use of the name “Sindharam Sanwarmal” within one kilometer of the existing shop rooms was prohibited, and the dispute brought through the suit was entirely about violation of this covenant and use of goodwill attached to the trade name in competition.

The Court analysed whether this dispute constituted a commercial dispute. Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act covers “agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce”, and Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) covers disputes relating to intellectual property rights including registered and unregistered trademarks.

The Trial Court had relied on Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) 15 SCC 585, which held that an immovable property dispute becomes a commercial dispute if the immovable property is actually used exclusively in trade or commerce. The High Court agreed with this reasoning and held that the shop rooms under the family arrangement were being used in trade and commerce exclusively. Therefore, the dispute fell squarely within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act.

Additionally, the plaint sought perpetual injunction against the defendant to restrain him from using the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal” or allowing third parties to use it. This brought the case also within the scope of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii), as the relief directly concerned intellectual property rights in a trade name.

In this light, the Court held that Hari Shankar Singhania v. Gaur Hari Singhania (2006) 4 SCC 658 did not restrict applicability of the Commercial Courts Act merely because the dispute arose out of a family settlement. The relevant question is not whether the origin was familial but whether the underlying dispute is commercial in nature. The present dispute involved exclusive rights of use of a trademark and goodwill in business, which are commercial matters.

The Court also addressed the defendant’s challenge in APOT 95 of 2025 that the Trial Court should not have made observations on merits after finding lack of jurisdiction. The Court clarified that once the plaint is filed before the competent Court, all issues — including limitation, binding effect of the family agreement and enforceability of covenants — will remain open and will not be prejudiced by remarks in the impugned order.

DECISION:The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s finding that all disputes raised in CS 126 of 2023 are commercial in nature and fall within Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction lacked authority to entertain the suit. The plaint must be filed before the appropriate Commercial Court.

Both appeals APOT 99 of 2025 and APOT 95 of 2025 were dismissed, with liberty to the plaintiff to present the plaint before the competent Commercial Court, where all issues will be considered afresh without being influenced by any findings of the Trial Court or High Court.

Case Title: Ramji Lal Agarwal Vs. Sourav Agarwal

Order Date: 14 November 2025

Case Numbers: APOT 99 of 2025 with CS 126 of 2023

Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-OS:225-DB

Court: High Court of Calcutta

Bench: Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak and Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

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

Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. Vs Vaibhav S. Pingale

Maintainability of Appeals Against Notice Orders in Injunction Applications

FACTS: Perpetual Vision LLP and another party filed a commercial suit before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Saket. Along with the suit, they filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking temporary injunction and requested that the injunction be granted immediately without notice to the defendants (ex parte ad-interim injunction).

The Commercial Court on 03.11.2025 did not grant an ex parte injunction immediately. Instead, it issued summons of the suit and notice of the injunction application to the defendants for appearance and reply. The Court directed that the suit is commercial in nature and required the defendants to file written statement with statement of truth and affidavit of admission and denial within the mandatory 30-day period from the date of service.

Feeling dissatisfied because ex parte relief was not granted immediately, Perpetual Vision LLP preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 claiming that the refusal of urgent injunction amounted to rejection under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC and was therefore appealable.

PROCEDURAL DETAIL: The appeal was filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which permits appeals only against orders specifically enumerated under: • Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC

Since the case had nothing to do with arbitration, the appellants argued that the impugned order was appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC, which permits an appeal only against orders passed under Order 39 Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 CPC.

The appellants relied heavily on A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan (2000) 7 SCC 695, arguing that “refusal to grant ex parte injunction” should be treated as rejection under Order 39 Rule 1.

CORE DISPUTE:  The central legal question before the High Court was:

Whether an order merely issuing notice on an application for interim injunction and not granting ex parte relief amounts to an order appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC and therefore maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act?

If the answer were yes, the appeal would proceed; if not, the appeal had to be dismissed outright.

DETAILED JUDICIAL REASONING:  The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the CPC structure. The Court examined Order 39 Rule 1 CPC (grant of temporary injunction), Order 39 Rule 3 CPC (requirement of issuing notice before granting injunction), and Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC (appealable orders).

The Court clarified that although the final decision on granting temporary injunction falls under Order 39 Rule 1, the procedural step of deciding whether notice should be issued or ex parte action should be taken is governed exclusively under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.

Order 39 Rule 3 makes issuance of notice before granting injunction the norm, while passing ex parte injunction without notice is the exception and requires reasons recorded in writing.

Therefore, a judicial act of simply issuing notice on an injunction application is an exercise of power under Order 39 Rule 3 and not Order 39 Rule 1.

Because Order 39 Rule 3 does not appear in the list of appealable orders under Order XLIII Rule 1(r), an appeal cannot be maintained in such a situation.

The Court relied on its earlier binding Division Bench judgments:

• Sahil Singh Maniktala v. Harpreet Singh, 118 (2005) DLT 350 (DB)

• Nisha Raj v. Pratap K. Kaula, 57 (1995) DLT 490 (DB)

Both judgments hold that issuance of notice on an injunction application is not appealable because it does not decide or adjudicate rights. Only in extremely rare situations where restitution is absolutely impossible (e.g., deportation, execution of death sentence, irreversible export of goods, etc.) may an order of issuing notice be appealable. The present case did not fall under these rare categories.

The Court also examined the appellant’s argument that the order recorded “submissions heard” and therefore should be appealable. The Court categorically rejected this, clarifying that hearing submissions before issuing notice does not convert the procedural step into an adjudication of rights.

Ultimately, the High Court held that the Commercial Court order neither granted nor denied injunction; rather, it only directed that the other party be heard. Therefore, the order was purely procedural and not appealable.

DECISION:  The High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act because the impugned order is not covered under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The appeal was dismissed without entering into merits since the order was only issuance of notice on the injunction application — a step expressly empowered under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, which the Legislature has deliberately excluded from the list of appealable orders.

Case Title: Perpetual Vision LLP & Anr. Vs Vaibhav S. Pingale & Ors.

Order Date: 13 November 2025

Case Number: FAO (COMM) 316/2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10019-DB

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble 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

KRBL Limited Vs Becher Raghavji Patel

MUMBAI Gate Rice was held similar to Well Known Trademark INDIA Gate Rice

Facts:  The plaintiff, M/s KRBL Limited, is one of India’s leading companies engaged in the business of processing, marketing, and exporting rice, including basmati rice. In 1993, the plaintiff adopted the trademark “INDIA GATE” along with the artistic device of the India Gate monument for its rice products. Over time, the plaintiff’s brand attained enormous reputation and goodwill across India and internationally, with trademark registrations not only in India but also in several foreign jurisdictions including Canada and Australia. The plaintiff also secured a copyright registration for the artistic label depicting the India Gate. Subsequently, in 2019, while the present suit was pending, the plaintiff became the registered proprietor of the trademark “INDIA GATE” in Class 30 under No. 599833.

The plaintiff discovered in 2006 that the defendants had applied for registration of the trademark “MUMBAI GATE” with the device of a gate for rice. The plaintiff objected immediately on the ground that the mark was a deceptive imitation of the famous INDIA GATE mark, likely to mislead the public into assuming an association between the defendants’ products and the plaintiff. The defendants did not commence commercial use of the mark, but their registration attempts and efforts to build distribution networks across India triggered the suit.

Procedural Details: The suit was instituted in 2006 seeking a permanent injunction for infringement of copyright and trademark and for passing off. Summons were issued and an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 02.11.2006 restraining the defendants from using the mark “MUMBAI GATE”. The defendants appeared initially and filed a written statement, but they did not produce any invoices or documentary proof of actual commercial use of the impugned mark. They failed to admit or deny the documents of the plaintiff.

Issues were framed on 16.12.2008, and evidence was led by the plaintiff with original invoice records showing continuous use of the INDIA GATE mark since 1993, billing worth crores of rupees, trademark and copyright registrations, and proof of well-known trademark status. The defendants neither filed evidence nor cross-examined the plaintiff’s witnesses. On 24.10.2024, after repeated absence, the defendants were proceeded ex parte.

Core Dispute: The central legal question was whether the defendants’ trademark “MUMBAI GATE with the device of a gate” constituted infringement and passing off against the plaintiff’s established and well-known registered trademark “INDIA GATE”. The plaintiff claimed that the rival marks were phonetically, visually, structurally and conceptually similar, creating a high probability of deception. The defendants, having stopped defending the suit, put forward no evidence to support their mark or justify its adoption.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis:  The Court first acknowledged that the plaintiff had incontestable prior rights over the trademark INDIA GATE. Continuous commercial use since 1993, massive sales volumes, and wide market penetration established strong goodwill. The trademark had also been officially recognised as a well-known trademark in the Trademarks Journal No. 1915 on 19.08.2019, evidence of its special status under trademark law.

The registration certificate dated 12.08.2019 for INDIA GATE in Class 30 confirmed statutory rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999. Further, the copyright registration reinforced ownership of the artistic work in the label.

The Court noted that the defendants had not placed on record any evidence of actual commercial use of “MUMBAI GATE”. However, proof of actual use is not necessary for granting an injunction if imitation and likelihood of confusion exist. The very adoption of a deceptively similar mark is actionable if it is intended to ride upon the reputation of another.

The Court relied upon decisions previously recognising the proprietary rights of KRBL Limited in the INDIA GATE trademark, including KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani and KRBL Limited v. John Doe, as well as the well-established principles of trademark infringement laid down in Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar and later in Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Burger & Anr.

The most critical legal test applied was the triple identity test, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani, holding that similarity in the rival marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE for identical goods (rice) and identical customer base satisfied the criteria for infringement. The same reasoning applied to the present case because the suffix “GATE”, the device of a monumental gate, and the use of the mark for rice all pointed to an obvious attempt to confuse consumers.

The Court concluded that the defendants’ adoption was not honest. It would have misled ordinary purchasers and would have caused substantial injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill and business. The injunction granted in 2006 already prevented further damage and remained uninterrupted for nearly two decades. The Court found that there was no legal or equitable justification not to convert the interim injunction into a permanent decree.

Decision:  The High Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. A permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants from using the trademark “MUMBAI GATE” or any other mark deceptively similar to “INDIA GATE”. The interim injunction dated 02.11.2006 was merged into the final decree.

The plaintiff did not press for reliefs concerning damages or delivery-up of infringing goods because there was no evidence that the defendants ever commercially sold products under the impugned mark. However, considering that the plaintiff contested the matter for nearly nineteen years, incurring substantial litigation expenses across 95 hearing dates, the Court awarded lump-sum legal costs of ₹10,00,000 in favour of the plaintiff.

With these directions, the suit was decreed and disposed of.

Case Title: KRBL Limited Vs Becher Raghavji Patel & Anr.

Case Number: CS(COMM) 724/2016

Date of Order: 31 October 2025

Court: High Court of Delhi 

Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

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

The Indian Express (P) Ltd. Vs Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.

Contractual Restraints, Trademark Law, and Acquiescence

Introduction: This research paper analyses in detail the Bombay High Court’s order concerning a long-standing trademark and contractual dispute between two prominent media houses arising out of the use of the marks “Indian Express” and “The New Indian Express”. The judgment deals with complex issues of ownership, territorial restriction, permissive use, trademark infringement, passing off, contractual interpretation, and enforcement of consent decrees. The court examines the circumstances under which a party permitted to use a derivative trademark within a limited territory may or may not extend that use beyond agreed boundaries.

The Court ultimately grants an injunction in favour of The Indian Express (P) Ltd., holding that the Defendant’s use of “The New Indian Express” for an event in Mumbai amounted to breach of a consent decree, besides trademark infringement and passing off. This paper simplifies the legal discussion while keeping the legal depth, citations, and reasoning intact.

Facts of the Dispute:  The dispute traces its origins to the historical division of business between the two groups belonging to the Goenka family. The Indian Express Group was controlled by Shri Ramnath Goenka, and its shareholding was divided among various family members and entities. Disagreements arose over ownership and management, leading to multiple litigations in the early 1990s between Manoj Kumar Sonthalia on one side and Vivek Goenka on the other.

These litigations were settled through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 5 February 1995 (MoS), which was later recorded as a decree by the Madras High Court on 16 April 1997 in C.S. Nos. 1246 and 1247 of 1992. A Supplemental Agreement dated 12 August 2005 was also incorporated into a subsequent order of the Madras High Court on 16 September 2005.

Under these agreements, the Plaintiff, The Indian Express (P) Ltd., retained absolute and unrestricted ownership of the title “Indian Express” across India for all purposes—print, electronic, or any other medium. The Defendant, Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd., was granted only a limited “permitted user” right to use the derivative expression “The New Indian Express” solely for publication of an English daily newspaper, and only within the five southern states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha, and the Union Territories of Pondicherry, Ennor, Lakshadweep, and Andaman & Nicobar.

Despite this restricted permission, in September 2024 the Defendant organised an event titled “The New Indian Express – Mumbai Dialogues” in Mumbai. The Plaintiff objected that this amounted to unauthorised use of the derivative mark outside the permitted territory and for a purpose not allowed under the MoS. The Plaintiff filed the present commercial IPR suit and the accompanying interim application seeking an injunction.

Procedural Background:  The MoS of 1995 and the Supplemental Agreement of 2005 were decreed by the Madras High Court, giving them the force of a binding consent decree. The Defendant subsequently obtained a trademark registration for “The New Indian Express (Label)” on 24 September 2005. This registration, however, became subject to rectification proceedings. In 2015, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) restricted the statutory rights of the Defendant by directing that the trademark could only be used within the same limited geographical territory specified in the MoS.

The Plaintiff previously filed a suit in the Delhi High Court objecting to references to “New Indian Express” in the Defendant’s “Sunday Standard” publication. Interim relief was refused on 10 October 2011. The suit was later dismissed for non-prosecution on 6 May 2015. The Defendant attempted to use this past litigation as evidence of acquiescence.

In the present matter before the Bombay High Court, the Plaintiff sought urgent injunctive relief on the ground that the event held in Mumbai amounted to breach of the consent decree, violation of negative covenants, and trademark infringement.

Core Dispute: The dispute centres on whether the Defendant’s use of the mark “The New Indian Express” in Mumbai for an event amounts to:

● breach of the MoS and Supplemental MoS

● violation of a consent decree

● infringement and passing off of the registered trademark “Indian Express”

● expansion of a limited permitted user right into an independent proprietary right

● honest concurrent user

● acquiescence by the Plaintiff through its past conduct

The Plaintiff argued that “The New Indian Express” is merely a derivative of the mark “Indian Express”, created for limited use under the MoS. It claimed exclusive nationwide rights in “Indian Express” and asserted that the Defendant’s event in Mumbai amounted to unauthorized commercial use.

The Defendant argued that it was promoting its newspaper, not publishing it outside the southern states. It relied on past joint advertising agreements, conduct of the parties, and the Delhi High Court’s 2011 interim order permitting limited references to “New Indian Express Group – Madurai”.

Detailed Judicial Reasoning:  The Court conducted a detailed analysis of contractual interpretation principles, trademark law, evidence of conduct, and the binding nature of consent decrees.

On Contractual Interpretation and Consent Decree:  The court emphasized that a consent decree must be construed strictly, following the plain meaning of its terms. Citing Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang, the Court held that a consent decree is both a command of the court and an enforceable contract. Once incorporated into a decree, the contractual terms gain legal force and cannot be modified by unilateral conduct or convenience.

The MoS clearly established that the Plaintiff retains full rights in “Indian Express” for all media and for the entire territory of India. The Defendant was only granted a “limited permitted user” right for publication of a newspaper in the southern states and UTs. The MoS also contained a negative covenant that the Defendant “shall not directly or indirectly use the title, IE or any of its derivatives or any title similar or resembling thereto at any time whatsoever” except as specifically permitted.

Therefore, organising a commercial event in Mumbai under the banner “The New Indian Express – Mumbai Dialogues” was outside the permitted scope in two ways: it was outside the geographical area and it was not for the purpose of newspaper publication.

On Trademark Rights and Territorial Limits:  The Court agreed with the Plaintiff that “The New Indian Express” is not an independently distinctive mark, but merely a derivative of “Indian Express” with the addition of the descriptive word “New”. The dominant part of the derivative mark is “Indian Express”, which already belongs exclusively to the Plaintiff. The Defendant could not claim that the MoS created a new trademark or conveyed ownership.

The Court cited Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. to support the principle that simply adding a word like “New” does not create a distinct mark that escapes infringement consequences.

The Court also noted that the IPAB’s 2015 Order, which restricts statutory rights of the Defendant to the same southern states, reinforces that the MoS is the ultimate source of the Defendant’s rights.

On Use Outside Permitted Territories:  The Court found that organising a revenue-generating event in Mumbai was not in any way connected to the permitted purpose of publishing a newspaper within the limited territory. It amounted to conducting a separate business using the derivative mark. This was clearly prohibited under Clause 18(iv) of the MoS, which prevented any use of the mark “for any other purpose or in any other area”.

The Court emphasised that the Defendant was attempting to expand its rights beyond the consent decree and was attempting to convert a limited permissive use into a full proprietary right.

On Acquiescence:  The Court rejected the Defendant’s plea of acquiescence. It observed that to establish acquiescence, the Defendant must show open and notorious use, knowledge of the Plaintiff, and positive conduct amounting to consent. Citing Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Codes v. Addis and Son, the Court reaffirmed that mere silence or inaction is insufficient to infer acquiescence.

The Court held that the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the Defendant’s alleged past usage outside the permitted area, and even if there had been inaction, it did not constitute consent. The Defendant also failed to disclose that after the IPAB order restricting use, it stopped using “New Indian Express” in Delhi after December 2018.

Thus, the plea of acquiescence was dismissed as misleading and misconceived.

On Honest Concurrent User:  The Defendant argued that the Delhi High Court’s interim order allowed it to use “New Indian Express” in some contexts and therefore the present use should be treated as honest concurrent user. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the interim order was not binding, had been overtaken by the IPAB order, and was neither res judicata nor precedent. The Defendant’s reliance on it was misplaced.

On Infringement and Passing Off:  The court held that since the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the registered mark “Indian Express”, and since “New Indian Express” is not a distinct mark but a derivative, any unauthorised use outside permitted limits dilutes the mark. The event held in Mumbai, being a standalone commercial activity, created a likelihood of confusion and amounted to both infringement and passing off.

Decision:  The Bombay High Court held that the Plaintiff made out a strong prima facie case for interim relief. The balance of convenience was in favour of the Plaintiff, and irreparable injury would be caused if the Defendant continued to violate the MoS.

Accordingly, The Court allowed the Interim Application and made it absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d). These clauses restrain the Defendant from:

● using “Indian Express” or any derivative such as “The New Indian Express” outside the southern states and UTs

● using the derivative mark for any purpose other than publication of a newspaper

● organising events or promotional activities in other territories under the said mark

● acting in breach of the MoS or Supplemental MoS in any manner

Conclusion:  The judgment reinforces the strict enforceability of consent decrees, particularly where trademark rights and limited permissive use arrangements are involved. It makes it clear that derivative marks arising out of settlements do not create independent proprietary rights. Territorial and purpose-based restrictions must be honoured strictly, and any breach invites the full force of injunctive relief. The case is a significant precedent for media and trademark disputes involving divided business groups and derivative brand rights created by settlement agreements.

Case Title: The Indian Express (P) Ltd. Vs Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd.

Order Pronounced On: 13 November 2025

Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 31555 of 2024 in COMM IPR Suit (L) No. 31230 of 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 

Judge: Hon’ble Justice R. I. Chagla

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

B.C. Hasaram & Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal

Clarification on Evidence-Based Damages in Trademark Infringement

Factual Background:  The case revolved around a dispute between two manufacturers of Ayurvedic eye drops. The respondent, Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, was the proprietor of M/s Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni, who claimed ownership of the registered trademark “Nayan Jyoti,” used for Ayurvedic eye drops since 1990. The appellant, B.C. Hasaram & Sons, operated under the management of Radha Krishna Chandnani and his sons, and was engaged in a similar business of manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had adopted and used a deceptively similar mark “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” to market identical Ayurvedic eye drops, leading to confusion among consumers.

According to the plaintiff, her trademark “Nayan Jyoti” was well-known under Sections 2(1)(zg) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It was also claimed that the defendant’s mark “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” not only infringed upon her registered trademark but also copied her trade dress—this included the orange-white packaging, typography, depiction of a man, and eye symbol—causing deception and dilution of her goodwill.

The plaintiff also referred to an earlier incident in 2009, when the Director, Ayurveda and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, had issued a warning to the defendant for similar misconduct, resulting in the suspension of their licence. After several years of compliance, the defendant allegedly resumed using the infringing mark in 2023, prompting the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings.

To verify the alleged infringement, the plaintiff engaged an investigator, who placed an online order for “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” eye drops through the defendant’s website, haridwaryurved.com. The order was delivered in Bhajanpura, Delhi, confirming the defendant’s online sales in the capital city.

Procedural Background:  The plaintiff filed C.S. (COMM) No. 23/2023 before the Commercial Court, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, seeking a decree of permanent injunction and damages worth ₹1 crore against the defendant. On 10 May 2023, the trial court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant’s premises. The Commissioner’s report detailed substantial quantities of goods and packaging materials bearing the infringing mark.

The defendant, however, failed to file its written statement, leading the court to strike off its defence on 5 October 2023. Later, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that they were no longer manufacturing or selling the disputed products and consented to the decree in terms of one prayer clause of the plaint. Consequently, the interim injunction was made absolute, and the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.

In addition to granting a permanent injunction, the District Judge awarded ₹48,35,610 as compensatory damages and ₹2,27,514 as costs. The damages were based on the quantity of goods seized and the price of the plaintiff’s products, which the court treated as equivalent to the infringing goods. The decision relied heavily on precedents like Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8198) and Sandisk LLC v. B-One Mobile (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8022), which supported punitive damages in cases of repeated infringement.

Aggrieved by the computation of damages, B.C. Hasaram & Sons filed the present Regular First Appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the CPC.

Core Dispute: The appeal raised two core questions before the Delhi High Court: 1. Whether the District Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit?  2. Whether the damages awarded were based on valid evidence and proper legal reasoning under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act?

Appellant's Argument: Appellant argued that the District Court had erred both in jurisdictional finding and in computation of damages. It was contended that no admissible evidence was presented to substantiate the claim for ₹1 crore in damages. The computation of ₹48,35,610, according to the appellant, was based on flawed assumptions—that the seized goods represented one month’s production and that the defendant had been trading for two months before the injunction. The court, she argued, had wrongly applied Sandisk LLC where counterfeit goods were involved, unlike in the present case where the defendant held a valid licence.

The appellant relied on Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5594) and Gujarat Ginning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. (1938 SCC OnLine Bom 94), emphasizing that damages must be proven through evidence and not speculation. The appellant also asserted that the District Court incorrectly used the product’s retail price (₹45 per unit) instead of calculating the profit margin or actual loss caused to the plaintiff, contrary to the principle of compensatory damages under Koninklijke Philips.

Respondent's Argument: Respondent defended the District Court’s judgment, submitting that the damages were reasonably estimated in the absence of the defendant’s financial records. The Local Commissioner’s report, he argued, provided sufficient foundation for computing damages, supported by decisions like Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. Berachah Sales Corporation (2023 SCC OnLine Del 8599) and Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2440), where damages were allowed based on reasonable estimation when the infringing party withheld key data. He further noted that the defendant had, through an affidavit, consented to a decree, implying acceptance of liability.

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis:  The Delhi High Court examined the case in detail, identifying the two principal issues as jurisdiction and quantification of damages.

On territorial jurisdiction, the Court referred to the precedent of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780), which introduced the “sliding scale” and “effects” tests for online transactions. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction in online trademark disputes arises only when the website is interactive and specifically targets customers in the jurisdiction, causing injury to the plaintiff’s goodwill or business. Applying this principle, the Court found that the plaintiff’s investigator had successfully purchased the infringing product online, with delivery and invoicing in Bhajanpura, Delhi. Thus, the defendant’s activities satisfied both tests, validating the trial court’s jurisdictional finding.

On the issue of damages, the Court carefully analyzed Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act and Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, which govern the award of damages in IP disputes. The High Court clarified that a plaintiff claiming damages must provide a reasonable estimate backed by foundational facts and evidence, either documentary or oral, showing actual or probable loss. The Court reiterated that damages cannot rest on speculative calculations or assumptions unsupported by record.

The Court observed that the plaintiff’s claim for damages was first introduced in the written submissions and not supported by affidavit evidence. No witness was cross-examined on the computation of damages, and the trial court’s reliance on the Local Commissioner’s report to determine one month’s stock as the basis for damages was deemed speculative. The assumption that the defendant’s business operated for two months before injunction was also found unsubstantiated.

In light of Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (supra), the Bench underscored that speculative or hypothetical assertions cannot justify substantial monetary awards. The plaintiff, having failed to provide a rational evidentiary basis linking the infringement to actual financial loss, had not discharged the burden of proof. Therefore, the damages decree was unsustainable in law.

The Court further emphasized that compensatory damages should reflect either actual loss to the plaintiff or unjust enrichment of the defendant. The absence of a reasoned, evidence-based calculation risked arbitrary enrichment, which goes against the compensatory principles underlying Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act.

Final Reasoning:  The Delhi High Court upheld the finding of territorial jurisdiction and the injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “Amrit Nayan Jyoti.” However, it set aside the award of ₹48,35,610 as damages on the ground of lack of evidence and misapplication of principles. The matter was remanded to the District Court for fresh determination limited to the issue of damages and account of profits. Both parties were granted liberty to produce evidence and material to assist the Court in re-evaluating damages in accordance with law. No order as to costs was passed.

Conclusion:  This decision by the Delhi High Court reinforces the importance of evidence-based adjudication in intellectual property disputes. While the Court firmly upheld the territorial jurisdiction principle from Banyan Tree, it reiterated that damages in trademark cases cannot be based on assumptions or estimates but must be proven through reliable evidence. The ruling aligns with the emerging jurisprudence that separates injunctive relief—which may be granted on a prima facie showing of infringement—from compensatory damages, which demand concrete proof of loss or gain.

By remanding the matter for fresh assessment, the Court ensured fairness and prevented arbitrary enrichment while reaffirming the procedural discipline necessary for quantification of damages in IP litigation.

Case Title: B.C. Hasaram & Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, Proprietor of Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni

Case Number: RFA (COMM) 214/2025 

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9867-DB

Date of Judgment: 12 November 2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble 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

Dabur India Limited Vs Patanjali Ayurved Limited

Disparagement in Ayurvedic Product Advertising

Facts: Dabur India Limited, a household name in the field of Ayurveda since 1884, approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against what it termed as a false, malicious, and disparaging advertising campaign launched by Patanjali Ayurved Limited and its associate company, Patanjali Foods Limited. Dabur contended that Patanjali had issued an advertisement for its product “Patanjali Special Chyawanprash” that described other Chyawanprash available in the market—including Dabur’s—as “Dhoka” (deception). The advertisement showed a mother feeding her child Chyawanprash, followed by the voice-over “Chalo Dhoka Khao,” and featured Baba Ramdev, who declared that “most consumers are being deceived in the name of Chyawanprash.”

Dabur claimed that the said advertisement directly insulted and defamed the entire class of Chyawanprash manufacturers, creating a false impression that all other brands—including Dabur’s—were fake, inferior, and deceptive. Dabur, being the market leader with over 61% market share and having introduced Chyawanprash commercially in 1949, asserted that this advertisement had a direct and irreparable impact on its goodwill and consumer trust.

Procedural Background

The suit was filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from broadcasting the impugned advertisement and from engaging in unfair competition, disparagement, and defamation. Dabur also sought damages and removal of the advertisement from all media platforms.

The Core Dispute: The dispute revolved around whether the Patanjali advertisement, which labeled most Chyawanprash products as “Dhoka” (deception), amounted to generic disparagement of Dabur’s product and whether such an advertisement was protected under the right to commercial free speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Dabur argued that the advertisement directly attacked all Chyawanprash products and, by necessary implication, disparaged its own product, which dominates the market. Patanjali, on the other hand, claimed that the advertisement merely exercised its right to “commercial puffery” and that it neither identified nor referred to Dabur’s product, explicitly or implicitly.

Plaintiff’s Submissions

Dabur argued that it has been manufacturing Chyawanprash under a valid AYUSH license in accordance with the Rasa Tantra Saar Va Siddha Prayog Sangraha, one of the authoritative texts under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It emphasized that the recipe for Chyawanprash is a classical Ayurvedic formulation mentioned in several recognized texts and that any manufacturer following such formula cannot be called deceptive.

Dabur relied on multiple precedents:  Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 431 — holding that generic disparagement of a class of products affects the market leader.  Dabur India Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 718 — recognizing that even indirect disparagement of a rival product without naming it is actionable.Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Adhikari Brothers, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1427 — affirming that disparagement of a product class is impermissible even if generic.HUL v. Reckitt, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2133 — holding that false, misleading, or generic disparagement is not protected speech.Beiersdorf AG v. HUL, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3443 — observing that untrue statements of fact in advertisements are impermissible.

Dabur asserted that Patanjali’s use of the word “Dhoka” was a deliberate attempt to malign competitors and mislead consumers. It further relied on the earlier case Dabur India Ltd. v. Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., CS(Comm) 1195/2024, where a similar advertisement had been restrained by the Delhi High Court, and where the Division Bench later permitted only fair comparisons, provided they did not deride a competitor’s product. Dabur claimed the new advertisement violated that express judicial direction.

Defendants’ Submissions:  Patanjali argued that the advertisement was a legitimate exercise of its right to commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as recognized in Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL, (1995) 5 SCC 139. It contended that advertisements inherently involve exaggeration or “puffery,” and the term “Dhoka” was used in a general, humorous manner, not directed at any specific brand.

Patanjali maintained that there was no mention, identification, or depiction of Dabur or any other brand, and thus no cause of action arose. The company claimed the commercial merely highlighted its own product’s superior qualities, such as containing 51 Ayurvedic herbs, which is permissible under comparative advertising.

The defendants also cited Marico Ltd. v. Adani Wilmar Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1513, and Havells India Ltd. v. Amritanshu Khaitan, 2015:DHC:2495, to argue that comparative advertisements are allowed to “play in the grey area,” provided they are not wholly false. They contended that “a reasonable viewer” would understand such language as a promotional exaggeration, not a literal accusation.

Judicial Reasoning: The Court  noticed that although commercial advertisements are protected under Article 19(1)(a), this protection is not absolute and is subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), especially in cases involving misleading or defamatory content. An advertiser’s right to promote its own product does not extend to defaming another’s.

The Court noted that while comparative advertising is permissible, an advertiser must not cross the line into disparagement. The distinction lies between saying “my product is better” (permissible) and “your product is bad” (impermissible).

Upon viewing the advertisement in its entirety, the Court found that the message conveyed was not limited to promoting Patanjali’s product but went further to allege that all other Chyawanprash, by implication, were “deceptive.” The use of a strong term like “Dhoka,” combined with the stature of Baba Ramdev—a public figure and perceived authority on Ayurveda—gave the message an air of authenticity and seriousness likely to mislead the public.

The Court found that this went beyond mere puffery and amounted to generic disparagement of the entire class of Chyawanprash products, adversely impacting Dabur, the market leader. The judge referred to Dabur v. Emami, HUL v. Gujarat Cooperative, and Reckitt v. Wipro Enterprises, reiterating that even indirect disparagement of a class of products is actionable.

It was further held that all manufacturers of Chyawanprash who possess valid AYUSH licenses and follow statutory formulations under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act cannot be called deceptive. Any representation suggesting otherwise was false and misleading.

Decision:  The Court held that Dabur had made out a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The balance of convenience lay in favour of Dabur, as the advertisement had the potential to cause irreparable damage to its reputation and goodwill. Court restrained Patanjali Ayurved Limited, Patanjali Foods Limited, and all associated entities from broadcasting, publishing, or disseminating the impugned advertisement or any similar advertisement that referred to Chyawanprash as “Dhoka” or “deceptive,” whether in electronic, print, or social media. The Court directed Patanjali to take down the advertisement from all platforms, including YouTube and Instagram, within 72 hours.

Conclusion:  This judgment reinforces the boundary between permissible commercial puffery and unlawful disparagement. It underscores that freedom of commercial speech cannot be used as a shield for misleading the public or defaming competitors. While companies may extol their own products, they cannot malign others under the guise of comparative advertising. Particularly when the subject matter concerns Ayurvedic or medicinal formulations governed by statutory standards, false or misleading claims are strictly impermissible.  The Court’s reasoning harmonizes constitutional free speech with statutory consumer protection, ensuring that advertising remains competitive but fair.

Case Title: Dabur India Limited Vs Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Anr.

Case Number: CS (COMM) 1182/2025

Date of Order: 06 November 2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

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

Vinay Aggarwal Vs. State of NCT

Misuse of Criminal Law in Corporate Disputes

Facts of the Case:  This case arises out of a long-standing family and business dispute between the petitioner, Shri Vinay Aggarwal, and his own family members—his father, Shri Jai Gopal, and his younger brother, Shri Ajay Aggarwal. The petitioner claimed to have been engaged in the business of chemicals and chemical compounds used in manufacturing Holi colours and gulal since 1989, under the trademark “Gopal.” To expand the business, he incorporated a private limited company named M/s. Laxmi Narain Jai Gopal Products Pvt. Ltd. in 1994, with its registered office at 18/8, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner became the Chairman, while his brother Ajay Aggarwal was made a Director. The business allegedly continued under the same brand name “Gopal,” with the company’s trade name and trademarks being applied for registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

According to the petitioner, due to health complications including multiple surgeries, he was unable to participate actively in the management of the company and relied entirely on his father and brother. In 2011, he discovered that his brother Ajay Aggarwal, with the support of their father, had secretly filed two applications in 2003 for registration of the trademarks “Gopal” and “Gopal Gold” in his personal name, without the petitioner’s knowledge. These trademarks, the petitioner alleged, were being used by Ajay Aggarwal to sell similar products through a sole proprietorship firm titled M/s. Laxmi Narain Jai Gopal & Sons, which was distinct from the original company. This act, according to the petitioner, amounted to cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust, as the brother had allegedly diverted the goodwill, reputation, and business assets of the company for personal profit.

The petitioner further alleged that in December 2011, he discovered purchase invoices showing that the address of the company had been illegally changed from its registered office at Shakti Nagar to another address in Rohini without his consent. Upon visiting the company’s premises, he found that all company records, furniture, and equipment had been removed and locked away by his father and brother. The petitioner accused them of misappropriating company funds, forging documents, and illegally benefiting from the reputation of the “Gopal” brand, which he claimed to have built over decades.

Procedural Background:  The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 199 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 156(3) CrPC, seeking registration of an FIR against the respondents for offences under Sections 406, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He also requested the court to direct the police to investigate the alleged fraud and forgery.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant and several witnesses, including officials from the Trade and Tax Department and the Trademark Registry, dismissed the complaint on 5 September 2016. The Magistrate held that the allegations were not substantiated by documentary evidence and that the dispute appeared to be of a civil and corporate nature, not criminal. The petitioner challenged this order before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) through Criminal Revision No. 58482/2016, but the ASJ, by an order dated 3 November 2016, upheld the decision of the MM.

Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC, contending that both lower courts had failed to appreciate the prima facie evidence and had wrongly dismissed the complaint without considering that, at the stage of summoning, only a tentative view is required and not a detailed inquiry.

Nature of the Dispute: The core of the dispute revolved around three main issues. First, whether the petitioner could substantiate his claim that he had been carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling Holi colours under the brand name “Gopal” since 1989. Second, whether his brother’s act of registering the trademarks “Gopal” and “Gopal Gold” in 2003 in his own name constituted forgery, cheating, or criminal breach of trust. And third, whether the alleged removal of company records, assets, and funds by the respondents amounted to criminal misappropriation or was merely part of an internal family and business conflict better addressed through civil or company law remedies.

The petitioner’s case was built on the argument that his health had kept him away from business management and that his family members had taken advantage of his absence to usurp his proprietary rights and divert business assets. He claimed that these actions were deliberate and fraudulent, aimed at excluding him from the company and stealing his intellectual property and business identity.

The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioner’s claims were baseless and contradicted by evidence. They contended that it was, in fact, Ajay Aggarwal who had been running the proprietorship M/s. Laxmi Narain Jai Gopal since 1989–90 and had legitimately registered the trademarks in 2003. They denied any illegal removal of records or misappropriation, asserting that these issues had already been adjudicated in prior proceedings before the Company Law Board and civil courts.

Detailed Judicial Reasoning and Discussion: The Court found that there was no documentary evidence or corroborative witness testimony to prove this claim. The petitioner had failed to produce basic materials such as business registration, bank statements, invoices, or tax records from that period. His argument that all records were taken away by the respondents was found insufficient because, as the Court noted, certain documents would have remained accessible to him, especially those relating to registration and personal business transactions. Thus, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s foundational claim of running a business since 1989 remained unsubstantiated.

On the issue of trademark registration, the Court accepted that the trademarks “Gopal” and “Gopal Gold” were indeed registered in 2003 in the name of Ajay Aggarwal. However, it emphasized that trademark registration in itself does not constitute a criminal act. For offences such as cheating under Section 420 IPC or forgery under Section 463 IPC, there must be clear evidence of fraudulent intent or wrongful gain. Since the petitioner’s claim of prior ownership was unproven, the subsequent registration of trademarks by his brother could not, by itself, be treated as fraudulent. Moreover, the petitioner had not filed any rectification petition under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to challenge the registration, which weakened his assertion of prior ownership.

With respect to the alleged removal of company records, the Court found that the petitioner had only produced his oral testimony without any supporting material. No independent witness testified that the respondents had removed or concealed company records or assets. The respondents, on their part, pointed out that similar allegations had already been raised before the Company Law Board in Company Petition No. 19(ND)/2013, which had been rejected by the Board in its order dated 15 February 2013. The Board had even appointed a Chartered Accountant to audit the company’s accounts, who found no irregularities or misappropriation attributable to the respondents. The High Court held that these findings of the Company Law Board significantly undermined the petitioner’s allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation.

The Court also noted that a civil suit concerning trademark ownership (Civil Suit No. 50/2013) had been decided earlier, in which it was clearly recorded that the trademarks “Gopal” and “Gopal Gold” were registered in Ajay Aggarwal’s name since 2003, and that no rectification application had been filed by the petitioner. In light of these concurrent civil and quasi-judicial findings, the High Court concluded that the petitioner’s attempt to pursue criminal proceedings was essentially an abuse of process, seeking to criminalize a civil and family business dispute.

Court further observed that for a magistrate to issue summons under criminal law, the standard is whether a prima facie offence is made out. Mere suspicion or allegations without supporting evidence cannot justify summoning. The petitioner’s evidence did not meet this standard, as it largely consisted of self-serving statements without corroboration. The Court agreed with both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge that no criminal offence had been made out against the respondents.

Final Decision: The Delhi High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, observing that there was no prima facie material to substantiate the allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, or forgery. The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a family and business conflict with civil remedies available under company and intellectual property laws. It reiterated that criminal law should not be used as a weapon in family business disputes or commercial disagreements.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the orders dated 5 September 2016 and 3 November 2016 of the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, respectively. The judgment concluded that there was no merit in the petition and that the petitioner had failed to produce any cogent evidence justifying the initiation of criminal proceedings. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Analytical Perspective:  This judgment exemplifies the judiciary’s cautious approach in distinguishing between civil and criminal liability in cases arising from family or business disputes. While the petitioner alleged forgery and criminal breach of trust, the absence of concrete evidence and the existence of parallel civil proceedings revealed that the matter was fundamentally civil in nature. The High Court reaffirmed the settled principle that criminal law cannot be invoked merely to settle private or commercial scores. By referring to findings of the Company Law Board and earlier civil suits, the Court reinforced the need for consistency in judicial reasoning and the avoidance of conflicting verdicts on identical facts.

The ruling also highlights the importance of evidentiary discipline. Mere allegations of wrongdoing, unsupported by verifiable documentation or witness testimony, cannot justify the serious step of summoning a person to face criminal trial. The Court’s insistence on this evidentiary standard underscores the principle that criminal prosecution must rest on credible prima facie evidence, not conjecture or suspicion.

Case Title: Vinay Aggarwal Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1262/2017

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9793

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

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

Rajneet Singh & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi

Quashing of Non-Compoundable Offences in Trademark Disputes

Facts of the Case: The matter arose out of an FIR No. 460/2024 dated 21st October 2024, registered under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi. The FIR was based on a complaint filed by BrandMonitor, acting on behalf of M/s. Gianni Versace S.R.L., a globally recognized luxury fashion brand having its registered office in Milan, Italy. The complaint alleged that certain entities operating within the North Delhi district were involved in the sale, storage, and advertisement of counterfeit goods bearing the trademarks of “Versace”. According to the complainant, these activities amounted to infringement of its registered trademarks and constituted offences under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

After the FIR was lodged, investigation commenced against the accused persons, namely the petitioners in this case. During the course of time, the petitioners entered into negotiations with the complainant and ultimately reached an amicable settlement. Pursuant to this, M/s. Gianni Versace S.R.L. expressed that it no longer wished to pursue criminal proceedings against the accused. Each petitioner executed a separate settlement agreement with the complainant, agreeing to pay the agreed settlement amounts. The complainant, through its authorized representative, filed an affidavit and No Objection Certificate (NOC) before the Court, confirming that the disputes had been settled voluntarily and without any pressure or coercion.

Procedural Background: Following the settlement, the petitioners filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of the FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. During the hearing, Mr. Vinay Choudhary, the authorized representative of Gianni Versace S.R.L., appeared in person and confirmed that the complainant had indeed settled the matter voluntarily, received the agreed sums, and did not wish to continue with the criminal case. The State, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor, was also heard, and the Investigating Officer verified the presence and identity of the complainant’s representative.

The petitioners argued that since the matter had been resolved amicably and the complainant did not wish to proceed, continuing the criminal proceedings would serve no purpose and would merely result in wastage of judicial resources. The petitioners, therefore, sought quashing of the FIR on the basis of the settlement.

The Core Dispute: The central question before the Court was whether the FIR registered under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 could be quashed in the exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) when the offences were technically non-compoundable in nature but the parties had amicably settled the dispute. The Court had to balance two competing considerations—first, that offences under the Trade Marks Act involve elements of public interest since they deal with counterfeiting and consumer deception; and second, that continuation of proceedings after a bona fide settlement would be futile and contrary to the interests of justice.

Detailed Reasoning and Judicial Discussion:The Court acknowledged that offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 are not compoundable under Section 320 CrPC. However, the High Court retains the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC) in appropriate cases where the parties have reached a genuine settlement and the continuation of proceedings would serve no useful purpose.

The Court first referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 303, where it was held that even non-compoundable offences could be quashed by the High Court if the settlement between the parties was bona fide and the continuation of prosecution would be an exercise in futility. The Court quoted relevant portions from Gian Singh, emphasizing that the ultimate objective of the criminal justice process is to secure justice and not to pursue proceedings mechanically when the complainant no longer wishes to continue.

The Court then relied upon Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2014) 6 SCC 466, where the Supreme Court elaborated guiding principles for quashing criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise. In that judgment, the Apex Court observed that while offences of a heinous or serious nature involving public morality or state interest should not be quashed merely due to a private settlement, criminal cases having a predominantly civil or commercial nature could be quashed to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the process of law. Justice Narula extracted the key principles from Narinder Singh, noting that the High Court must assess whether the possibility of conviction is remote and whether continuing the case would cause oppression and prejudice to the accused.

Applying these principles, the Delhi High Court recognized that offences under the Trade Marks Act—though linked to public interest—often arise in a commercial context involving disputes between trademark proprietors and alleged infringers. In the present case, the complainant, a reputed international brand, had confirmed a voluntary and complete settlement, had accepted payment, and had expressed its desire not to continue with the criminal case. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the likelihood of conviction was remote because the complainant, being the main prosecution witness, was no longer willing to support the charges. The continuation of such proceedings would thus not advance the cause of justice but instead burden the judicial system.

Court emphasized that while offences under the Trade Marks Act protect public and consumer interest, the Court must also consider the practicality of prosecution in a situation where the aggrieved party has reconciled and withdrawn its complaint. Continuing a prosecution that has lost prosecutorial support would serve no real public purpose. Accordingly, the Court held that it was appropriate to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom to secure the ends of justice.

However, the Court noted that since the state machinery had been set in motion through the registration of the FIR and subsequent investigation, it was appropriate to impose a nominal cost on the petitioners. Thus, the Court directed each petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,000/- with the Delhi Police Welfare Fund within four weeks.

Decision:  The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 460/2024 dated 21st October 2024, registered under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 at Police Station Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, along with all consequential proceedings. The Court found that the matter had been amicably resolved, the complainant had voluntarily withdrawn its grievance, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would only amount to misuse of judicial resources. The petitioners were directed to deposit the prescribed costs as a token responsibility toward the State machinery. The Court concluded by expecting the parties to adhere to the terms of their respective settlement agreements.

Case Title: Rajneet Singh & Ors. Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1291/2025, CRL.M.A. 5805/2025

Date of Decision: 07 November 2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula

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

Glorious Investment Limited Vs. Dunlop International Limited

Bar on Intra-Court Appeals in IPD Cases

Facts: Glorious Investment Limited had filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks for registration of the trademark “DUNLOP” under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Dunlop International Limited opposed this application, claiming prior rights and goodwill in the mark. Despite the objection, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated July 4, 2024, allowed Glorious Investment Limited’s application and permitted registration of the mark “DUNLOP.”

Dunlop International Limited, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPD) of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated June 11, 2025, set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and remanded the matter for reconsideration after granting both parties a fresh opportunity of hearing.

Feeling dissatisfied, Glorious Investment Limited filed the present appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, contending that such a second appeal was maintainable under the Letters Patent and the Calcutta High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2023.

Procedural Background: The sequence of proceedings began with the registration application before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, followed by an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Single Judge of the High Court, and finally culminated in the present appeal before the Division Bench (Commercial Appellate Division) of the same High Court.

The essential procedural question before the Bench was whether an intra-court (Letters Patent) appeal would lie from an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The central issue was purely legal:Can a second appeal (intra-court appeal) be maintained before a Division Bench against an order passed by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?  This question required the court to interpret the interplay between Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2023 of the Calcutta High Court.

Arguments On behalf of the Respondent No. 1 (Dunlop International Limited): Respondent No.1 argued that this appeal was effectively a second appeal, which was barred by Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to him, once a Single Judge had exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 91, no further appeal could lie, even under the Letters Patent. He referred to multiple provisions of the Trade Marks Act—Sections 18, 20, 21, 23, and 91—to show the hierarchical stages and absence of a provision for a second appeal. He relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613, P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 672, Vasanthi v. Venugopal (2017) 4 SCC 723, and the Delhi High Court Full Bench judgment in Avtar Narain Behal v. Subhash Chander Behal (ILR 2009 II Delhi 411).He further contended that Rule 2(o) of the Calcutta High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2023 does not contemplate a second appeal against an appellate order of a Single Judge.

On behalf of the Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Registrar of Trademarks):He relied on Section 97 of the Trade Marks Act to show that appeals are limited to original orders, not appellate orders, and maintained that the Rules also did not envisage a further appeal.

On behalf of the Appellant (Glorious Investment Limited): Appellant argued that Section 100A of the Code applies only when a Single Judge hears an appeal from a Civil Court. Since the Registrar of Trademarks is not a Civil Court, the bar under Section 100A does not apply. He argued that Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the IPD Rules expressly provide for appeals before the Division Bench from orders passed by Single Judges in intellectual property matters. He relied heavily on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5531), and Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2972), both of which held that intra-court appeals remain maintainable in such circumstances.

Judicial Reasoning and Analysis:The Court first revisited the classic judgment of the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. (1953) 1 SCC 794, where it was held that once a statute provides an appeal to the High Court, that appeal must follow the procedural framework of the High Court, including the availability of a further appeal under the Letters Patent, unless specifically barred.

However, the Calcutta High Court noted that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was inserted later, creates such a bar. The Court observed that Section 100A clearly prohibits a further appeal from a decision of a Single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction from an original or appellate decree or order.

The key question then became whether the Registrar of Trademarks could be considered a Civil Court and whether his decisions amounted to “orders” within the meaning of Section 100A.

The Court conducted a detailed examination of Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that the Registrar has powers akin to a Civil Court, such as summoning witnesses, receiving evidence, and issuing commissions. The Bench compared these powers with those conferred upon the Company Law Board (CLB) under Section 10E of the Companies Act, 1956, which the Supreme Court had held in Kamal Kumar Dutta (supra) to possess “all the trappings of a Court.”

Following this analogy, the Bench concluded that the Registrar of Trademarks exercises quasi-judicial powers that carry “all the trappings of a Court.” Therefore, an appeal under Section 91 from the Registrar’s order before a Single Judge constitutes a first appeal, and any further appeal from that decision would amount to a second appeal, which is expressly barred by Section 100A of the Code.

The Court also observed that the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which preceded the 1999 Act, specifically provided for a second appeal (under Section 109(5)), but this provision was consciously omitted in the new Act. Such legislative deletion clearly demonstrated the legislative intent to limit appeals to a single level.

The Court distinguished the Delhi High Court’s decision in Resilient Innovations (PhonePe case) on the ground that it dealt with an original proceeding under Section 57 (Rectification), whereas the present case arose from an appellate order under Section 91, to which Section 100A squarely applies.

Further, the Division Bench noted that even within the Calcutta High Court, a similar approach had been followed earlier in The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs v. Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal (2016 SCC OnLine Cal 10988), where a Letters Patent appeal from a Single Judge’s order under the Designs Act, 2000 was dismissed on the same reasoning.

Decision: After examining all authorities and statutory provisions, the Division Bench held that the present appeal was not maintainable. The Bench emphasized that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure bars such intra-court appeals from orders of Single Judges passed in appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed TEMPAPO–IPD 5 of 2025 as not maintainable, along with the connected application GA–COM 1 of 2025, without any order as to costs.

Law Settled: This judgment settles the position that no intra-court appeal lies under the Letters Patent or under the IPD Rules of the Calcutta High Court from an order of a Single Judge passed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The bar under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure squarely applies to such matters because the Registrar of Trademarks possesses all the trappings of a Civil Court, and hence, any appeal from his order before a Single Judge amounts to a first appeal, making a subsequent appeal impermissible.

This decision aligns the Calcutta High Court’s position with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613, distinguishing the Delhi High Court’s contrary view in Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5531).

Case Title: Glorious Investment Limited Vs. Dunlop International Limited & Anr.

Case No.: TEMPAPO–IPD 5 of 2025

Date of Order: November 4, 2025

Court: High Court at Calcutta 

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee and Hon’ble Justice Om Narayan Rai

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