SC-Dr. Aloys Wobben and Another versus Yogesh Mehra and Others

# When Two Remedies Collide: The Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling on Patent Revocation and Counter-Claims in Dr. Aloys Wobben vs. Yogesh Mehra

Patent Counter-Claim and Revocation Petition Cannot Run Simultaneously

Introduction:

Patent law in India gives, those who believe a patent has been wrongly granted,  more than one way to challenge it. A person can go to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board [Now High Court ] and file what is called a revocation petition. Or, if that person is being sued for infringing a patent, he can fight back in the same court by filing a counter-claim, asking the court to cancel the patent itself. For a long time, the question of whether a party could do both things at the same time , pursue a revocation petition before the Appellate Board and simultaneously raise a counter-claim before the High Court , remained unanswered by the highest court of the land.

The Supreme Court of India, in Dr. Aloys Wobben and Another versus Yogesh Mehra and Others, decided on 2 June 2014, finally settled this important and recurring question. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, laid down clear rules about which remedy survives when a party chooses both. It also clarified the hierarchy and relationship between Section 25 and Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, and confirmed the binding force of consent orders passed by the High Court in patent matters. The decision has since become one of the foundational precedents in Indian intellectual property law.

Factual and Procedural Background:

Dr. Aloys Wobben, the first appellant, is a scientist and engineer of considerable standing in the field of wind energy. He holds approximately 2,700 patents across more than 60 countries, of which around 100 are registered in India. His manufacturing enterprise, carried on under the name Enercon GmbH, is counted among the three largest wind turbine manufacturers in the world, employing more than 8,000 people globally.

In 1994, Dr. Wobben entered into a joint venture in India with Yogesh Mehra and Ajay Mehra, the first and second respondents in the case. The Indian joint venture company was incorporated as Enercon India Limited, later renamed Wind World (India) Limited, with the Mehra brothers serving as its directors. The company was set up to manufacture wind turbines in India and was originally permitted to do so through a series of intellectual property licence agreements granted by Dr. Wobben. The last of these agreements was signed on 29 September 2006, superseding all earlier agreements including those of 1994 and 2000.

The relationship between the parties broke down. Enercon GmbH terminated the intellectual property licence agreement on 8 December 2008, citing non-fulfillment of obligations by Enercon India Limited. Despite this termination, according to Dr. Wobben, Enercon India Limited and the Mehra brothers continued to use his patents and technical know-how without authorisation or payment.

In January 2009, Enercon India Limited struck first by filing 19 revocation petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to have Dr. Wobben's patents cancelled. Responding to this, Dr. Wobben filed a series of patent infringement suits before the High Court of Delhi. The first suit, bearing number 1349 of 2009, was filed on 27 July 2009, followed by three more suits on 20 October 2009, a fifth suit on 28 January 2010, a sixth on 2 July 2010, and a seventh on 5 July 2010. In all, 10 patent infringement suits were instituted.

The respondents, in turn, filed counter-claims in some of those infringement suits, praying for the revocation of the very same patents that were already challenged before the Appellate Board. They also filed 4 additional revocation petitions before the Appellate Board in 2010 and 2011, bringing the total number of revocation petitions to 23. The result was a sprawling legal battle in which the same patents were being challenged before two different forums simultaneously, by the same parties, on the same grounds.

On 1 September 2010, the High Court passed a consent order, agreed to by both sides, consolidating 8 suits for joint trial before the High Court and fixing a detailed schedule for expedited proceedings. Issues in the consolidated suits were framed on 20 September 2011. Despite having agreed to this consent order, the respondents continued to pursue their revocation petitions before the Appellate Board. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Appellate Board had already passed orders revoking six of Dr. Wobben's patents , patents that were simultaneously under challenge in the counter-claims pending before the High Court.

The Dispute:

The core dispute before the Supreme Court was not about the merits of any individual patent, but about the procedure itself. The appellants argued that once a defendant in an infringement suit files a counter-claim seeking revocation of a patent, the Appellate Board loses jurisdiction and only the High Court can decide the question of that patent's validity. They further argued that pursuing both a revocation petition before the Appellate Board and a counter-claim before the High Court at the same time was fundamentally impermissible. The appellants also relied upon the consent order of 1 September 2010 to argue that the respondents had already agreed to resolve everything before the High Court and could not therefore continue before the Appellate Board.

The respondents resisted, arguing that both remedies were independently available under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act and that the legislature had provided distinct forums for distinct purposes. They contended that curtailing their right to pursue revocation petitions would deprive them of the broader procedural safeguards that come with proceedings before the Appellate Board, including more avenues of appeal.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:

The Court examined Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, which is the primary provision governing the revocation of patents. He noted that this provision opens with the words "Subject to the provisions contained in this Act," and not with words like "Notwithstanding" or "Without prejudice to." This linguistic choice was of critical importance to the court's entire analysis. The opening phrase means that Section 64 is subservient to all other provisions of the Patents Act. If any other provision of the Act conflicts with Section 64, the other provision prevails.

The court then identified three distinct ways in which a patent can be challenged once it has been granted under the Patents Act. First, under Section 25(2), any person interested can file a notice of opposition before the Controller of Patents within one year of the publication of the grant of a patent. The Controller refers this to an Opposition Board, which examines the matter and gives recommendations. After hearing both sides, the Controller passes a final order. This order can then be appealed before the Appellate Board. Second, under Section 64(1), any person interested can file a revocation petition directly before the Appellate Board at any point in time, not limited to the one-year window of Section 25(2). Third, again under Section 64(1), a defendant in an infringement suit can file a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patent. This counter-claim is adjudicated by the High Court hearing the infringement suit, as confirmed by Section 104 of the Patents Act.

Court explained what kind of person can use each remedy. Under Section 25(1), which operates before the grant of a patent, any person at all can file a representation opposing the grant. But after the patent is granted, the circle narrows. Under both Section 25(2) and Section 64(1), only a "person interested" can challenge the patent. The expression "person interested" is defined in Section 2(1)(t) of the Patents Act to mean someone engaged in, or promoting, research in the same field as the invention. The court observed that this is not a static category , someone who was not a "person interested" when the patent was granted may become one later, depending on his activities.

Turning to the central question , whether a party can simultaneously pursue a revocation petition before the Appellate Board and a counter-claim before the High Court, court pointed to the use of the word "or" in Section 64(1). The provision speaks of revocation either on a petition of any person interested before the Appellate Board, or on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement before the High Court. The word "or" is plainly disjunctive, not conjunctive. This means that both remedies cannot be pursued at the same time by the same person for the same purpose. The court accepted this submission fully and without hesitation.

The more difficult question was: when a party has already chosen both remedies (as the respondents had done in this case), which one should be allowed to continue? The court found no direct answer in the Patents Act itself and therefore turned to accepted principles of law, particularly Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the stay of suits. Section 10 provides that no court shall proceed with a suit where the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties before another court of competent jurisdiction. The court also invoked Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which preserves the inherent powers of the court to prevent abuse of its process.

Treating a counter-claim as equivalent to an independent suit, which is what it is in law , the court held that the principle of Section 10 applies with full force. This led to a clear and symmetrical rule. Where a revocation petition was filed before an infringement suit was instituted, the revocation petition gets priority and must be allowed to continue. The counter-claim subsequently filed cannot be permitted to proceed. Conversely, where the infringement suit was filed first and the defendant responded with a counter-claim, the counter-claim gets priority. Any revocation petition filed thereafter by the same party is barred by the principle equivalent to res judicata and cannot be continued.

Applying this rule to the facts of the case, the court found that out of the 23 revocation petitions filed by the respondents, 19 were filed in January 2009, which was before any infringement suit was instituted by Dr. Wobben. Those 19 petitions, therefore, must be allowed to continue before the Appellate Board, and the corresponding counter-claims filed in response to the infringement suits cannot be pursued for the same patents. For the 4 revocation petitions filed after the infringement suits were instituted, the counter-claims already filed in response to those suits must be given priority, and those 4 revocation petitions must be discontinued.

The court went on to address the contention regarding the consent order of 1 September 2010. Justice Khehar held clearly that the consent order was entirely valid and binding. He noted that where multiple disputes of the same nature exist between the same parties (even if relating to different patents), it is open to the parties to agree, by consent, to resolve all their disputes before a single adjudicatory authority. Once such consent is given and a court of competent jurisdiction records it, neither party can step outside it to seek relief from any additional forum. The consent order was recorded by the High Court, which had full statutory jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and the court upheld it in its entirety.

The court also briefly addressed the comparison drawn by the appellants with Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. That provision explicitly empowers a court to stay an infringement suit pending rectification proceedings before the Appellate Board. The appellants argued that the absence of a similar provision in the Patents Act showed a gap in the law. Justice Khehar noted that this submission was rendered academic by the earlier conclusions, since only one remedy can survive at a time, there is no question of simultaneous proceedings that would need to be stayed.

The Final Decision of the Court:

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court of Delhi and disposed of the appeal in the terms elaborated in its judgment. The court declared that the 19 revocation petitions filed by Enercon India Limited in January 2009, being prior in time to the infringement suits, must be allowed to continue before the Appellate Board. The corresponding counter-claims in the infringement suits, to the extent they relate to the same patents, cannot be allowed to proceed. For the 4 revocation petitions filed after the infringement suits were instituted, the counter-claims already filed have priority, and those revocation petitions cannot be continued. The consent order of 1 September 2010 passed by the High Court was expressly affirmed.

Points of Law Settled in the Case:

This judgment settled several important principles of patent law in India. The court declared definitively that the word "or" in Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 is disjunctive, meaning a party cannot simultaneously pursue both a revocation petition before the Appellate Board and a counter-claim before the High Court in respect of the same patent. The court also held that Section 64 of the Patents Act, being prefaced by the words "Subject to the provisions contained in this Act," is subservient to all other provisions of the Act, and any conflict must be resolved in favour of the other provision. The court further established that the principle embedded in Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the situation where a party has pursued both remedies, with the first-in-time proceeding being the one that survives. The court confirmed that a counter-claim in a patent infringement suit is to be treated as an independent suit for all practical purposes. Finally, it was held that consent orders passed by the High Court in patent proceedings are fully binding on the parties and cannot be circumvented by continuing parallel proceedings before another forum.

Case Title:Dr. Aloys Wobben and Another Vs Yogesh Mehra and Others

Date of Order:2 June 2014

Case Number:Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2013

Citation:AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2210; 2014 (15) SCC 360; (2014) 7 SCALE 536

Name of Court:Supreme Court of India

Name of Hon'ble Judges: Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice A.K. Patnaik

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested SEO Titles for Legal Journal Publication

1. Patent Revocation vs Counter-Claim in India: Supreme Court Settles the Conflict in Wobben vs Mehra 2014

2. Can a Party File Both a Revocation Petition and a Counter-Claim? Supreme Court of India Answers

3. Section 64 Patents Act 1970 Explained: Wobben vs Mehra and the Rule Against Dual Remedies

4. Intellectual Property Appellate Board vs High Court Jurisdiction in Patent Revocation: Supreme Court Ruling

5. Dr. Aloys Wobben vs Yogesh Mehra: A Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Patent Law in India

6. Patent Counter-Claim and Revocation Petition Cannot Run Simultaneously: Supreme Court of India 2014

7. First in Time Rule in Patent Revocation: How Wobben vs Mehra Shaped Indian IP Litigation

SEO Tags

Patent revocation India, Section 64 Patents Act 1970, counter-claim patent infringement, Intellectual Property Appellate Board jurisdiction, High Court patent jurisdiction, Dr Aloys Wobben vs Yogesh Mehra, Supreme Court patent judgment 2014, patent infringement suit India, revocation petition vs counter-claim, disjunctive or in statute, Section 10 CPC stay of suit, res judicata patent law, consent order patent litigation, Enercon India patent dispute, wind turbine patent India, person interested Patents Act, Section 25 Patents Act opposition, patent validity challenge India, IP litigation strategy India, Indian patent law Supreme Court, AIR 2014 SC 2210, 2014 15 SCC 360, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote

**Dr. Aloys Wobben and Another versus Yogesh Mehra and Others**

Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2013 | Decided on 2 June 2014

Bench: Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice A.K. Patnaik

Patents Act, 1970 — Section 64(1) — Section 25(2) — Section 104 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 10 — Section 151

A patent may be challenged by way of revocation petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by any person interested, or by way of counter-claim before the High Court by a defendant in an infringement suit. The word "or" in Section 64(1) is disjunctive. Both remedies cannot be availed of simultaneously by the same person against the same patent. Where both have been pursued, the proceeding first in point of time shall prevail and the later proceeding shall not be continued. Proceedings under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act, if initiated by a person interested, eclipse all further rights of that person under Section 64(1) including both the revocation petition and the counter-claim route. A counter-claim in an infringement suit is to be treated as an independent suit and the principle of Section 10, Code of Civil Procedure, governs the conflict between simultaneous proceedings. Consent orders passed by the High Court in patent proceedings, agreeing to consolidate and try disputes before a single forum, are fully binding on the parties and cannot be bypassed by continuing proceedings before any other forum. Section 64, being prefaced by the words "Subject to the provisions contained in this Act," is subservient to all other provisions of the Patents Act and must be read harmoniously therewith.

Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP Vs Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.

Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP Vs Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.:26.05.2026:FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2024: 2026:DHC:4757-DB: Hon'ble Justices Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora,

The Division Bench refused to interfere with the Single Judge’s order denying interim injunction in a trademark passing off dispute between two prominent UPSC coaching institutes. The appellant, owner of the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAM & RAO”, alleged that the respondent’s mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” was deceptively similar and intended to ride upon its goodwill.

The Court held that the rival composite marks, when viewed as a whole, were visually and phonetically distinct and that UPSC aspirants constituted a discerning class of consumers unlikely to be confused. The Bench also observed that the appellant failed to establish independent goodwill in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM” and had not produced sufficient evidence of confusion, misrepresentation, or damage.

The Court further noted prolonged delay, concurrent use since at least 2007, and the appellant’s failure to diligently prosecute the suit by leading evidence. Relying upon precedents including Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries, and Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, the Court upheld the refusal of interim injunction and dismissed the appeal while directing expeditious completion of trial proceedings.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#DelhiHighCourt, #TrademarkLaw, #TrademarkDispute, #PassingOff, #VajiramAndRavi, #VajiraoAndReddy, #IPLaw, #IntellectualProperty, #TrademarkInfringement, #UPSCCoaching, #CommercialCourtsAct, #InterimInjunction, #BrandProtection, #IndianTrademarkLaw, #LegalNewsIndia, #IPLitigation, #CivilProcedureCode, #DelhiHCJudgment, #TrademarkPassingOff, #IPRUpdates, #LegalUpdate, #CoachingInstituteDispute, #TrademarkRights, #JusticeManmeetPritamSinghArora, #JusticeVKameswarRao, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor

====

Suggested Google SEO Titles

1. Delhi High Court Refuses Injunction in Vajiram vs Vajirao Trademark Passing Off Dispute

2. VAJIRAM & RAVI vs VAJIRAO & REDDY: Delhi High Court on Trademark Similarity and Passing Off

3. Delhi HC Holds “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY” Not Deceptively Similar

4. Trademark Passing Off in Coaching Industry: Delhi HC Dismisses Vajiram Appeal

5. Delhi High Court on Composite Marks and Passing Off in UPSC Coaching Trademark Dispute

6. Delay and Acquiescence in Trademark Cases: Delhi HC Verdict in Vajiram Case

7. Delhi HC Clarifies Law on Interim Injunction in Trademark Passing Off Matters

8. VAJIRAO & REDDY Allowed to Continue Use of Mark: Delhi HC Trademark Ruling

9. Delhi High Court Upholds Refusal of Interim Injunction in Coaching Institute Trademark Dispute

10. Landmark Delhi HC Judgment on Trademark Reputation, Goodwill and Passing Off in Education Sector

The Test of Passing off in relation to UPSC Coaching Institute

Introduction:

The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in M/s Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP v. M/s Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd. is an important decision dealing with trademark passing off, deceptive similarity, delay in seeking injunction, and the principles governing appellate interference in interim injunction matters. The dispute arose between two well-known coaching institutes engaged in preparation of candidates for the Civil Services Examination conducted by UPSC. The appellant, operating under the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAM & RAO”, alleged that the respondent’s use of the mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” amounted to passing off and was deceptively similar to its trademark.

The Court examined whether the use of the word “VAJIRAO” by the respondent created confusion among students and whether the appellant had established sufficient goodwill and reputation in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”. The Court also analysed the effect of delay, acquiescence, concurrent use, and the conduct of parties while deciding whether an interim injunction should be granted.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The appellant institute was originally established by Professor P. Velayutham under the mark “VAJIRAM & RAO”. Later, in 1976, the management was taken over by Mr. P.S. Ravindram and the institute started functioning under the name “VAJIRAM & RAVI”. The appellant obtained registrations for the marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, “VAJIRAM & RAO”, and also the standalone word mark “VAJIRAM”.

The respondent institute was also engaged in the business of coaching students for civil services examinations and had been using the mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY” since at least 2007. The respondent also possessed registration of its device mark bearing Trademark No. 1859489 with user claim from 2007.

The dispute arose when the appellant alleged that the respondent’s use of the expression “VAJIRAO” was deceptively similar to “VAJIRAM” and was intended to create confusion among students. According to the appellant, “VAJIRAO” was an abbreviation associated with its earlier mark “VAJIRAM & RAO”, particularly among students during the 1980s and 1990s.

The appellant instituted a commercial suit being CS(COMM) 43/2019 before the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction and interim injunction against the respondent for passing off and unfair competition. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 14 September 2023, refused to grant interim injunction. Aggrieved by the refusal, the appellant preferred the present appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

Dispute Before the Court:

The principal controversy before the Court was whether the respondent’s mark “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE” and its use of the standalone expression “VAJIRAO” were deceptively similar to the appellant’s marks “VAJIRAM & RAVI”, “VAJIRAM”, and “VAJIRAM & RAO”.

The appellant argued that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark “VAJIRAO” to exploit the goodwill and reputation associated with “VAJIRAM”. It was contended that both parties operated in the same field of UPSC coaching and targeted the same category of students, thereby increasing the possibility of confusion. The appellant also argued that delay in filing the suit should not defeat injunction because dishonest adoption disentitles the defendant from equitable relief.

On the other hand, the respondent contended that both marks were composite marks and had to be examined as a whole. According to the respondent, “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE” were visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct. The respondent further argued that UPSC aspirants are educated and discerning consumers who can clearly distinguish between coaching institutes. The respondent also relied upon long and continuous use of its mark since 2007 and argued that the appellant had acquiesced in such use.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:

The Division Bench carefully analysed the law relating to passing off. The Court reiterated that in an action for passing off, the plaintiff must establish goodwill attached to the mark, misrepresentation by the defendant, likelihood of confusion among consumers, and resulting damage.

The Court agreed with the findings of the Single Judge that the rival composite marks had to be compared as a whole. Upon comparing “VAJIRAM & RAVI” with “VAJIRAO & REDDY INSTITUTE”, the Court found substantial dissimilarities. The additional words “RAVI” and “REDDY”, the logos, and the inclusion of the word “INSTITUTE” created sufficient distinction between the marks.

The Court observed that the appellant itself had not seriously challenged the finding that the composite marks were dissimilar. The real challenge was confined to the respondent’s use of the standalone expression “VAJIRAO”.

The Court then examined whether the appellant had established goodwill and reputation in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”. It found that the appellant generally used “VAJIRAM” together with “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and had not produced convincing evidence showing independent goodwill attached exclusively to the word “VAJIRAM”. The Court noted absence of material such as sales figures, advertising expenditure, and promotional data to establish distinctiveness of the standalone mark.

For this proposition, the Court relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1163, where it was held that sales figures and advertisement expenditure are relevant factors in proving goodwill and reputation in a passing off action.

The Court further held that the appellant had failed to establish misrepresentation or confusion among students. The Court placed reliance upon interviews of successful UPSC candidates who had openly acknowledged attending both institutes and treated them as distinct coaching centres. These interviews demonstrated that the target audience was capable of differentiating between the two institutions.

Another important aspect considered by the Court was delay and acquiescence. The respondent had shown that both parties were advertising simultaneously in the same magazines since at least 2009. Therefore, the Court found the appellant’s claim that it discovered the respondent only in 2018 to be unconvincing.

The Court discussed the decision in Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan and Another, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27, but distinguished it on facts because that case involved only a solitary advertisement whereas the present matter involved continuous concurrent advertisements over several years.

The appellant relied heavily on Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 90, where the Supreme Court held that delay alone cannot defeat injunction in cases of dishonest adoption. However, the Division Bench held that the said judgment was inapplicable because dishonest adoption had not been prima facie established in the present case.

The Court also relied upon Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Limited and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court held that unexplained delay and prolonged silence by a plaintiff can prejudice the defendant who has continuously used the mark during that period. Applying this principle, the Court held that the respondent had built its own goodwill since 2007 and the appellant’s silence for more than a decade tilted the balance of convenience in favour of the respondent.

The Court further examined the principles governing appellate interference in interim injunction matters. Reliance was placed upon the celebrated judgment in Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727, wherein the Supreme Court held that appellate courts should not interfere with discretionary orders unless the lower court acted arbitrarily, perversely, or ignored settled legal principles.

The Court also referred to Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, where the Supreme Court reaffirmed limited appellate interference in interim injunction matters. Further reliance was placed upon Sanjay Gupta and Vinay Gupta v. Vineet Jain, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1862.

An important observation made by the Court concerned the conduct of the appellant during trial. The Court noted that although issues had been framed on 31 January 2020 and witness affidavits had been filed, the appellant had failed to commence recording of evidence even by 2026. The Court remarked that litigants often appear interested only in interim injunctions rather than final adjudication. The Court considered this conduct indicative of lack of bona fides.

Final Decision of the Court:

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge refusing interim injunction. The Court held that the appellant failed to establish deceptive similarity, goodwill in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”, likelihood of confusion, dishonest adoption by the respondent, or damage resulting from use of the impugned mark.

The Court directed the appellant to commence recording of evidence in July 2026 and complete evidence within three months. The respondent was also directed to conclude its evidence within three months thereafter. The Court further directed that failure by the appellant to proceed with evidence could result in dismissal of the suit under Order XVII Rules 2 and 3 read with Order IX CPC for non-prosecution.

Point of Law Settled in the Case:

The judgment reiterates that in passing off actions involving composite trademarks, marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected into isolated parts. Mere phonetic resemblance of one component may not be sufficient to establish deceptive similarity.

The decision further clarifies that a plaintiff claiming goodwill in a standalone portion of a composite mark must produce concrete evidence such as sales figures, promotional expenditure, and market recognition to establish distinctiveness.

The Court also reaffirmed that delay, acquiescence, and long concurrent use are relevant considerations while deciding interim injunction applications, particularly where dishonest adoption is not prima facie established.

The judgment additionally strengthens the principle that appellate courts should exercise restraint while interfering with discretionary orders concerning interim injunctions in intellectual property matters.

Case Title: Vajiram and Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP Vs Vajirao and Reddy Institute Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Order: 26 May 2026

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 7/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4757-DB

Court: Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Headnote

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal seeking interim injunction in a trademark passing off dispute between UPSC coaching institutes “VAJIRAM & RAVI” and “VAJIRAO & REDDY”. The Court held that the rival composite marks were not deceptively similar when viewed as a whole and that the appellant failed to establish independent goodwill in the standalone mark “VAJIRAM”. The Court further held that educated UPSC aspirants were discerning consumers unlikely to be confused, and prolonged delay and acquiescence by the appellant disentitled it from interim relief. The judgment reiterates settled principles governing passing off, composite trademarks, goodwill, delay, and limited appellate interference in interim injunction matters.

Trademark Law, Passing Off, Delhi High Court, Vajiram and Ravi, Vajirao and Reddy, Trademark Dispute, Composite Marks, UPSC Coaching Institutes, Intellectual Property Law, Interim Injunction, Deceptive Similarity, Trademark Infringement, Goodwill and Reputation, Acquiescence in Trademark Law, Delay in Trademark Suit, Commercial Courts Act, Wander Ltd Case, Toyota Prius Case, Midas Hygiene Case, IP Litigation India, Civil Services Coaching Trademark Dispute, Delhi HC Trademark Judgment, Brand Protection Law, Trademark Passing Off India, IP Rights India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

===

Marico Limited Vs. Minolta Natural Care

Marico Limited Vs. Minolta Natural Care:09.12.2025:COMMERCIAL IP (L) NO.28094 of 2025:2025:BHC-OS:24054:BombHC:Sharmila U Deshmukh H.J.

The Bombay High Court in Interim Application (L) No. 28667 of 2025, arising out of Commercial IP Suit, dealt with a trademark and copyright infringement dispute concerning Marico’s well-known “Parachute Advansed Jasmine” and “Hair & Care” products.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were marketing deceptively similar hair oil products under the marks “Sangini Jasmine” and “Hair Protection” using similar trade dress, colour combinations, stylized fonts, bottle shapes and artistic features intended to ride upon Marico’s goodwill and reputation.

The defendants argued that the words “Jasmine” and “Hair & Care” were generic, common to trade, covered by disclaimers and incapable of exclusive protection, besides raising objections relating to delay and jurisdiction.

Court held that trademark comparison must be based on overall impression and anti-dissection principles and observed that an average consumer with imperfect recollection was likely to be deceived by the defendants’ packaging and presentation.

The Court further held that disclaimers do not eliminate deceptive similarity analysis and that delay alone is not a defence in infringement actions. Finding a prima facie case of infringement, copyright violation and passing off, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Marico and restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks, labels and trade dress.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#MaricoLimited, #BombayHighCourt, #TrademarkInfringement, #CopyrightInfringement, #PassingOff, #TradeDress, #HairAndCare, #ParachuteAdvansedJasmine, #DeceptiveSimilarity, #TrademarkLaw, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #CommercialIPSuit, #AntiDissectionRule, #ConsumerConfusion, #TrademarkDisputeIndia, #BrandProtection, #IPRLitigation, #JusticeSharmilaDeshmukh, #TradeMarksAct1999, #CopyrightAct1957, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor

===

Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement Dispute

Deceptive similarity of Trademarks must be judged on the basis of overall commercial impression

Introduction:

The judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in Marico Limited vs. Minolta Natural Care & Ors. on 9 December 2025 is an important ruling in the field of trademark infringement, copyright protection, trade dress imitation and passing off under Indian intellectual property law. The dispute arose when Marico Limited, one of India’s leading FMCG companies, alleged that the defendants were selling hair oil products under the marks “Sangini Jasmine” and “Hair Protection” using packaging, labels, bottle designs, artistic features and colour combinations deceptively similar to Marico’s well-known “Parachute Advansed Jasmine” and “Hair & Care” products.

The judgment extensively discusses the principles governing deceptive similarity, anti-dissection rule, passing off, effect of trademark disclaimers, composite trademarks, and consumer confusion. The Court examined several important precedents of the Supreme Court and various High Courts while granting interim injunction in favour of Marico Limited. The ruling is significant because it reinforces the principle that trademark disputes must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary consumer having imperfect recollection and that dishonest imitation of overall trade dress cannot be permitted even where certain individual words may be descriptive or generic in nature.

Factual and Procedural Background:

Marico Limited instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court alleging infringement of its registered trademarks, copyright in artistic works, and passing off against the defendants who were manufacturing and marketing hair oil products under the marks “Sangini Jasmine” and “Hair Protection”. The plaintiff asserted that its products “Parachute Advansed Jasmine” and “Hair & Care” had acquired enormous goodwill and market recognition over several decades.

The plaintiff contended that the defendants copied the essential features of its products including the stylized use of the word “Jasmine”, distinctive bottle shapes, blue and white colour combinations, green cap design, placement of models’ photographs, depiction of jasmine flowers and coconuts, and the overall artistic layout of the packaging. According to Marico, the defendants deliberately designed their products in a manner calculated to deceive consumers and ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.

The plaintiff relied upon its trademark registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and asserted copyright ownership in the artistic labels and packaging under the Copyright Act, 1957. The suit also sought leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent to combine causes of action relating to trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off.

The defendants opposed the interim injunction application primarily on the grounds that the words “Jasmine” and “Hair & Care” were descriptive and common to trade. They also argued that several of the plaintiff’s trademark registrations contained disclaimers restricting exclusive rights over these expressions. Another defence raised by the defendants was that the plaintiff had delayed filing the suit despite allegedly knowing about the defendants’ products since 2016. The defendants further contended that the products were sufficiently distinguishable because the house mark “Sangini” appeared on the packaging.

Dispute Before the Court:

The central dispute before the Court was whether the defendants’ products were deceptively similar to Marico’s products so as to constitute trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. The Court was also required to determine the legal effect of disclaimers attached to some trademark registrations and whether the use of descriptive or generic words could still amount to infringement when considered in the context of the entire packaging and trade dress.

The plaintiff argued that infringement must be judged on the basis of the overall commercial impression created by the competing products rather than isolated comparison of words. Marico asserted that the defendants had copied almost every significant visual element of the plaintiff’s products, including colour schemes, bottle shapes, stylized lettering, placement of graphical features and artistic layout. The plaintiff further argued that delay cannot defeat a trademark infringement claim because infringement gives rise to a recurring cause of action.

The defendants, however, contended that the words “Jasmine” and “Hair & Care” were incapable of exclusive appropriation due to disclaimers and common trade usage. They argued that the use of the word “Sangini” sufficiently differentiated their products from those of Marico. Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment in Pernod Ricard India Private Limited vs. Karanveer Singh Chhabra to argue that mere presence of common descriptive words cannot by itself establish deceptive similarity.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:

The Court discussed the issue of territorial jurisdiction and permitted joinder of causes of action under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. The Court observed that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 conferred jurisdiction upon the Bombay High Court because the plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai. The Court held that artificial splitting of trademark infringement and passing off claims would be undesirable since all disputes arose from the same transaction.

The Court rejected the defendants’ argument regarding delay and limitation. Relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Bengal Waterproof Limited vs. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Co., the Court observed that trademark infringement and passing off constitute recurring causes of action and delay alone cannot defeat a claim for injunction.

While discussing trademark infringement principles, the Court emphasized that marks must be compared as a whole and not dissected into isolated components. The Court referred to the anti-dissection rule and the concept of overall commercial impression. The Court carefully compared the rival products and observed that the defendants had copied the plaintiff’s unique bottle shape, blue-white colour combination, stylized representation of “Jasmine”, depiction of jasmine flowers and coconuts, and overall visual arrangement.

The Court relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in Parle Products Private Limited vs. J.P. & Co. 1972 1 SCC 618, where it was held that trademarks are remembered by general impression rather than photographic recollection. The Bombay High Court reiterated that an average consumer with imperfect memory is likely to be deceived when two products convey substantially similar visual impressions.

The Court also referred to Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. principles regarding deceptive similarity and consumer confusion. The Court noted that minor differences between rival marks become irrelevant when the overall impression creates likelihood of confusion among ordinary consumers purchasing everyday products.

An important part of the judgment concerned the effect of trademark disclaimers. The defendants argued that disclaimers attached to some registrations prevented Marico from claiming exclusivity over the words “Jasmine” and “Hair & Care”. The Court rejected this argument by relying upon the Bombay High Court decisions in Pidilite Industries Limited vs. S.M. Associates  2003 SCC OnLine Bom 143 and Pidilite Industries Limited vs. Riya Chemy 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5077.. The Court observed that disclaimers do not enter the marketplace and ordinary consumers are unaware of them. Therefore, while deciding deceptive similarity, the entire mark including disclaimed matter must still be considered.

The Court also discussed Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 concerning composite marks. Reference was made to Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. Alaknanda Cement Pvt. Ltd.2025 SCC OnLine Bom 783. and Three-N-Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Emami Ltd., where courts recognized that even if a word is part of a composite mark, exclusivity may still arise where the feature has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill.

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court ruling in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, by observing that Marico’s case was not based merely on use of common words but on the totality of deceptive visual features and overall trade dress copied by the defendants.

The Court also rejected the defence under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act which protects bona fide descriptive use. The Court held that the defendants were not using “Jasmine” descriptively but prominently as a trademark and source identifier. The placement and stylization of the word demonstrated trademark use rather than descriptive reference to ingredients.

After examining the sales figures, advertising expenses and market reputation of Marico’s products, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had established strong goodwill and reputation. The Court found that the defendants had failed to provide any honest explanation for adoption of deceptively similar trade dress and labels.

Final Decision of the Court:

The Bombay High Court held that Marico Limited had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. The Court observed that the defendants’ products were deceptively similar and likely to mislead consumers. It further held that the defendants had dishonestly attempted to imitate the plaintiff’s packaging and trade dress in order to capitalize upon Marico’s goodwill and reputation.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application and granted injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks, labels, packaging, bottles, logos and trade dress deceptively similar to Marico’s products.

Point of Law Settled:

It reiterates that deceptive similarity must be judged on the basis of overall commercial impression and not by dissecting marks into isolated parts. The ruling confirms that disclaimers attached to trademark registrations do not automatically eliminate the possibility of consumer confusion because ordinary consumers are unaware of such disclaimers. The decision also clarifies that even descriptive or common words may receive protection when used in a distinctive stylized trade dress that has acquired goodwill and reputation.

The judgment further strengthens the principle that delay alone is not a defence in trademark infringement actions because infringement constitutes a recurring cause of action. Most importantly, the ruling emphasizes that dishonest imitation of packaging, labels and trade dress intended to capitalize upon another trader’s reputation will not be tolerated by courts.

Case Title: Marico Limited Vs. Minolta Natural Care & Ors.

Date of Order: 9 December 2025

Case Number: COMMERCIAL IP (L) NO.28094 of 2025 

Neutral Citation: 2:2025:BHC-OS:24054

Name of Court: Bombay High Court

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested SEO Titles

Marico Limited vs Minolta Natural Care: Bombay High Court on Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Parachute Jasmine Trademark Dispute

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Explained Through Marico Judgment

Bombay High Court on 

Marico vs Minolta Natural Care: Important Ruling on Trademark Disclaimers

Hair Oil Trademark Dispute: Bombay HC Protects Marico’s Trade Dress

Bombay High Court on Anti-Dissection Rule in Trademark Law

Parachute Advansed Jasmine Case: Trademark and Copyright Analysis

Trademark Law Update: Bombay HC on Consumer Confusion and Passing Off

Bombay High Court Intellectual Property Judgment on FMCG Brand Protection

SEO Tags

Marico Limited, Minolta Natural Care, Bombay High Court, Trademark Infringement, Copyright Infringement, Passing Off, Trade Dress Protection, Parachute Advansed Jasmine, Hair and Care, Deceptive Similarity, Anti Dissection Rule, Trademark Disclaimer, Section 17 Trade Marks Act, Section 35 Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act 1957, Trade Marks Act 1999, FMCG Trademark Dispute, Intellectual Property Law India, Consumer Confusion, Commercial IP Suit, Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, Brand Protection, Trademark Litigation India, Packaging Infringement, Passing Off Action, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote

The Bombay High Court in Marico Limited vs. Minolta Natural Care & Ors., decided on 9 December 2025, granted interim injunction against the defendants for infringement of Marico’s trademarks “Parachute Advansed Jasmine” and “Hair & Care”, copyright in artistic labels and passing off. The Court held that deceptive similarity must be judged on the basis of overall commercial impression and anti-dissection principles from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. The Court further ruled that trademark disclaimers do not negate deceptive similarity analysis and that delay is not a defence in infringement actions. The defendants were restrained from using deceptively similar packaging, labels, bottle designs and trade dress likely to cause consumer confusion and unfairly exploit Marico’s goodwill.

Bennett Coleman and Company Limited Vs. Arjun Kumar

Bennett Coleman and Co Ltd. Vs. Arjun Kumar:22.05.2026: CS(COMM) 560/2026:DHC: Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela:

Court dealt with a commercial intellectual property and confidentiality dispute concerning the programme “News Ki Pathshala”. The plaintiff alleged breach of confidentiality, misuse of proprietary information, and infringement of trademark and copyright by former employees and associated parties.

The defendants challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court on the basis of an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring Mumbai courts and argued that no confidential material remained in their possession. 

The Court noted rival submissions on maintainability and jurisdiction, particularly the plaintiff’s reliance on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act for invoking Delhi jurisdiction. 

Considering the objections raised, the Court directed defendant no.6 to preserve and deposit cloned programme-related data in a sealed cover and permitted filing of replies on jurisdictional objections, which would be considered as a preliminary issue.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#DelhiHighCourt, #BennettColeman, #NewsKiPathshala, #TrademarkDispute, #CopyrightInfringement, #ConfidentialInformation, #CommercialSuit, #IPRNews, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #TradeMarksAct, #CopyrightAct, #JurisdictionChallenge, #MediaLaw, #EmploymentDispute, #LegalNewsIndia, #JusticeTusharRaoGedela, #CorporateLitigation, #IPLitigation, #DelhiHC, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor

====

Bennett Coleman vs Arjun Kumar: Delhi High Court Examines Copyright, Confidentiality and Territorial Jurisdiction in Media Industry Dispute

Introduction

The decision delivered by the Delhi High Court in Bennett Coleman and Company Limited vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors. on 22 May 2026 is an important development in the field of intellectual property law, employment-related confidentiality obligations, and jurisdictional disputes in commercial litigation. The matter arose from allegations made by Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, one of India’s leading media companies, against certain former employees and associated parties in relation to the programme “News Ki Pathshala”. The plaintiff alleged misuse of confidential information, copyright infringement, trademark-related violations, and unauthorized use of proprietary media content after the defendants ceased association with the organization.

The case is significant because it reflects the growing legal conflicts emerging in the digital media and broadcasting industry where editorial formats, research material, creative structures, and confidential production processes are increasingly being treated as valuable intellectual property assets. The Court was also required to examine whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction despite the existence of a contractual clause allegedly conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon Mumbai courts.

The order was passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while dealing primarily with an application seeking interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with various procedural applications filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the CPC.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Bennett Coleman and Company Limited, instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Delhi High Court alleging that the defendants were involved in activities detrimental to the plaintiff’s proprietary rights connected with the programme “News Ki Pathshala”. According to the plaintiff, the programme involved journalistic research, editorial scripting, visual presentation, and graphic integration which constituted original artistic and literary work protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendants, who were either employees or consultants associated with the plaintiff, had access to confidential and proprietary information during the course of their engagement.

The suit was filed as CS(COMM) 560/2026 before the Delhi High Court. Along with the suit, several interlocutory applications were moved seeking permission to place additional documents on record, exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, exemption from filing typed copies of certain documents, permission to file video materials in electronic form, and interim injunction relief against the defendants.

The Court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation by relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, observing that the matter involved urgent interim relief. The Court also allowed procedural exemptions and permitted filing of electronic evidence and redacted consultancy agreements.

The principal controversy emerged during hearing of the injunction application when defendant no.6 challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Senior counsel appearing for defendant no.6 argued that Clause 17 of the Consultancy Agreement specifically vested exclusive jurisdiction in the courts at Mumbai and therefore the Delhi High Court could not entertain the proceedings against that defendant. The defendants further contended that the consultancy relationship was on a principal-to-principal basis and not an employment relationship.

Dispute Before the Court

The dispute before the Court essentially revolved around three major issues. The first issue related to territorial jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. The second concerned allegations relating to misuse of confidential information and intellectual property. The third involved preservation and control over electronic data and access credentials connected with the programme.

Defendant no.6 argued that the suit was barred because the Consultancy Agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause favouring Mumbai courts. Reliance was placed upon several Supreme Court decisions including Dabur India Limited vs. K.R. Industries, (2008) 10 SCC 595, Paragon Rubber Industries vs. Pragathi Rubber Mills, (2014) 14 SCC 762, and Asma Lateef vs. Shabbir Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 42. According to the defendants, once parties had contractually chosen a forum, the Delhi High Court could not assume jurisdiction merely because trademark or copyright claims had also been added.

The defendants also disputed the allegation of possession of confidential information. Defendant no.6 stated before the Court that no confidential information belonging to the plaintiff was retained and that no device belonging to the plaintiff was in possession of the defendant. However, without prejudice to legal objections, defendant no.6 agreed to clone and preserve all information related to “News Ki Pathshala”, including emails available on the personal laptop, and deposit the same before the Court in a sealed cover.

Similarly, defendant nos.1 to 5 contended that no direction could legally be issued compelling them to rejoin employment with the plaintiff. They further argued that the plaintiff itself had admitted in the plaint that laptops and devices had been abandoned at workstations and therefore the allegation that defendants retained such devices was factually incorrect. Nevertheless, they undertook before the Court that passwords and access credentials available with them during employment would be shared with the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the suit was a composite intellectual property action involving trademark infringement, copyright infringement, breach of confidentiality, and unauthorized sharing of proprietary information. The plaintiff specifically invoked Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to contend that Delhi courts possessed jurisdiction. The plaintiff further emphasized that the programme content constituted “original artistic work” within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and had been created during the course of employment for the benefit of the plaintiff organization.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela adopted a cautious and balanced approach while dealing with the competing claims. Instead of immediately deciding the jurisdictional objection, the Court recognized that the issue required detailed consideration because it involved interplay between contractual jurisdiction clauses and special jurisdiction provisions under intellectual property statutes.

The Court took note of the defendants’ reliance upon Dabur India Limited vs. K.R. Industries, (2008) 10 SCC 595. In that case, the Supreme Court had examined whether a composite suit involving trademark and copyright claims could override statutory jurisdictional limitations. The decision emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be artificially created merely by combining multiple causes of action. Similarly, the defendants relied upon Paragon Rubber Industries vs. Pragathi Rubber Mills, (2014) 14 SCC 762, where the Supreme Court discussed principles governing maintainability of composite intellectual property suits. Reliance was also placed upon Asma Lateef vs. Shabbir Ahmad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 42, concerning enforcement of jurisdiction clauses and procedural maintainability.

At the same time, the Court also considered the plaintiff’s reliance on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. These provisions grant plaintiffs in intellectual property matters the right to institute proceedings where they reside or carry on business, thereby enlarging ordinary jurisdictional principles. The plaintiff argued that because copyright and trademark issues formed part of the suit, Delhi courts were competent to hear the matter.

The Court observed that since the jurisdictional objection was based upon the Consultancy Agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant no.6, the matter required detailed adjudication after proper pleadings. Accordingly, the Court permitted defendant no.6 to file an appropriate application raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction and directed that the same would be treated and decided as a preliminary issue.

An important aspect of the order was the Court’s emphasis on preservation of electronic evidence. The Court directed that the relevant programme-related data be cloned and deposited in a sealed cover within two days. This reflects increasing judicial awareness regarding digital evidence preservation in intellectual property and media disputes. The Court balanced interests of both parties by ensuring preservation of data without immediately granting unrestricted access to the plaintiff pending adjudication of jurisdictional objections.

The Court also recognized the commercial sensitivity of confidential information and passwords connected with media operations. The undertakings recorded from the defendants regarding passwords and absence of confidential information played an important role in shaping interim directions. The order demonstrates how Indian courts increasingly encourage preservation, disclosure, and procedural cooperation in technology-related disputes without immediately prejudging substantive rights.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court did not finally determine the issue of territorial jurisdiction or merits of copyright and confidentiality claims at this stage. However, the Court issued several interim procedural directions. Defendant no.6 was directed to clone and deposit all programme-related information and emails in a sealed pen drive before the Court. Defendant nos.1 to 5 undertook to provide passwords and clarified that no confidential information remained with them. The Court permitted filing of replies and rejoinders and directed that the jurisdictional objection would be considered as a preliminary issue in subsequent proceedings. The matter was thereafter listed before the Joint Registrar and later before the Court for further hearing.

Point of Law Settled

The order reiterates that in intellectual property and confidentiality disputes involving employment or consultancy arrangements, courts may prioritize preservation of electronic evidence even before finally deciding jurisdictional objections. The decision also highlights that contractual exclusive jurisdiction clauses can come into conflict with special jurisdiction provisions under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, requiring detailed judicial examination rather than summary rejection of proceedings.

The case further underlines that creative media formats, editorial scripting, graphic integration, and research material may potentially qualify for copyright protection when sufficient originality is demonstrated. It also reflects judicial sensitivity toward balancing commercial confidentiality with procedural fairness in the digital era.

Case Detail

Case Title: Bennett Coleman and Company Limited Vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors.

Date of Order: 22 May 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 560/2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:______

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Suggested SEO Titles

Bennett Coleman vs Arjun Kumar: Delhi High Court on Copyright and Confidentiality in Media Industry

Delhi High Court Examines Jurisdiction Clause in Intellectual Property Dispute

News Ki Pathshala Case: Delhi HC on Media Copyright and Confidential Information

Territorial Jurisdiction in IP Disputes Explained Through Bennett Coleman Case

Delhi HC Orders Preservation of Digital Evidence in Copyright Dispute

Bennett Coleman Intellectual Property Case: Analysis of Delhi High Court Order

Delhi High Court on Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act Jurisdiction Conflict

Media Industry Employment and Confidentiality Dispute Before Delhi HC

SEO Tags

Delhi High Court, Bennett Coleman, Arjun Kumar, News Ki Pathshala, Copyright Infringement, Trademark Dispute, Confidential Information, Intellectual Property Law, Commercial Courts Act, Trade Marks Act 1999, Copyright Act 1957, Territorial Jurisdiction, Media Law, Digital Evidence, Employment Confidentiality, CS COMM 560 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, IP Litigation India, Commercial Litigation, Copyright Protection, Trademark Law India, Legal News India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote

The Delhi High Court in Bennett Coleman and Company Limited vs. Arjun Kumar & Ors., CS(COMM) 560/2026, considered issues relating to copyright protection, breach of confidentiality, preservation of digital evidence, and territorial jurisdiction arising from disputes connected with the media programme “News Ki Pathshala”. The Court examined the interaction between contractual exclusive jurisdiction clauses and special jurisdiction provisions under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Pending adjudication of jurisdictional objections, the Court directed preservation and sealed deposit of electronic data and recorded undertakings regarding passwords and confidential information. The order highlights judicial emphasis on protection of digital evidence and proprietary media content in commercial intellectual property disputes.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

===

Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & Ors.

Suggested SEO Titles

Conversion of Revision into Appeal and Vice Versa: Supreme Court Clarifies Procedural Powers in Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan Case

Whether High Court Can Convert Revision into Appeal or Writ into Appeal: Detailed Analysis of 2009 Supreme Court Judgment

Jurisdiction of High Court to Convert Proceedings Explained: Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan v. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur

: Supreme Court Analysis

Scope of Article 227 and Section 115 CPC in Conversion of Proceedings: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment

Can High Court Convert Revision Petition into Appeal? Supreme Court Explains Procedural Flexibility

Important Supreme Court Judgment on Maintainability of Revision, Appeal and Writ Jurisdiction

Procedural Flexibility of High Courts under CPC and Constitution: Analysis of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan Judgment

High Court’s Power to Convert Proceedings under Article 226, 227 and Section 115 CPC

Detailed Legal Analysis on Conversion of Proceedings and Jurisdictional Errors in Civil Cases

Analytical Article

Power of High Court regarding Conversion of Writ Petition into Appeal and vice Versa

Introduction:

The decision of the Supreme Court in Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & Ors. is an important judgment dealing with procedural law, particularly the power of courts regarding conversion of one legal proceeding into another, such as conversion of a revision petition into an appeal or writ petition and vice versa. Although the original dispute arose from interpretation of the famous Nizam Jewellery Trust Deed, the Supreme Court delivered important observations on maintainability of revision petitions, appeals, supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the inherent power of High Courts to convert proceedings in appropriate cases.

The judgment is significant because litigants often file proceedings under incorrect provisions of law. The Court clarified that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantial justice where the superior court otherwise possesses jurisdiction. At the same time, the Court cautioned that such conversion is not automatic and can only be exercised in appropriate cases.

The Court also discussed the distinction between appeal, revision and writ jurisdiction, and explained when a finding becomes appealable and when it does not. The judgment therefore occupies an important place in Indian procedural jurisprudence.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The dispute arose out of “H.E.H. The Nizam’s Jewellery Trust” created by the Nizam of Hyderabad through a Trust Deed dated 29 March 1951. The trust dealt with valuable jewellery, ornaments and other properties belonging to the Nizam. The trust deed distributed benefits among different sons, daughters, grandchildren and descendants of the settlor.

The controversy mainly related to interpretation of Clauses 9 and 10 of the Trust Deed dealing with the “Remaining Sons’ Fund” and “Remaining Daughters’ Fund.” A dispute arose regarding who would inherit the shares of beneficiaries who died without leaving children.

Certain beneficiaries approached the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by filing Original Petition No. 173 of 1998 and Original Petition No. 253 of 1998 under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 seeking directions to trustees regarding proper interpretation of the trust deed. Simultaneously, civil suits being O.S. No. 383 of 1998 and O.S. No. 540 of 1998 were also filed by other beneficiaries seeking declaration and injunctions.

The Trial Court decided preliminary issues through a common judgment dated 21 July 1999. The Trial Court substantially accepted the interpretation advanced by children of deceased beneficiaries and held that even children of pre-deceased sons and daughters were entitled to benefits under the trust.

Aggrieved parties filed Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, notably, no direct appeal or revision was filed against the findings rendered in the suits themselves.

The High Court held that the original petitions under Sections 56 and 61 of the Indian Trusts Act were not maintainable. Yet, despite holding so, the High Court proceeded to decide the merits of the interpretation dispute and reversed the Trial Court’s reasoning.

The matter ultimately reached the Supreme Court through multiple civil appeals and special leave petitions.

Dispute Before the Supreme Court:

Although the substantive trust dispute was important, the major procedural controversy before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court could decide the merits after holding that the revision petitions themselves were not maintainable.

The appellants argued that once the High Court held the revision petitions to be non-maintainable, it ought not to have entered into merits. They further argued that interpretation of a trust deed did not involve jurisdictional error warranting revisional interference under Section 115 CPC.

Another important issue was whether the High Court could exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution even where revision under Section 115 CPC was unavailable.

Most importantly for procedural law, the Supreme Court examined whether a superior court could convert one proceeding into another, such as revision into appeal or writ into appeal, where justice demanded such exercise.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court made several important observations regarding procedural jurisdiction.The Court observed that the Trial Court’s findings on preliminary issues did not amount to a decree because the suit itself had not been finally disposed of. Therefore, no appeal lay immediately against those findings alone. The Court clarified that a mere finding without a formal decree is generally not appealable.

The Court then held that ordinarily once the High Court found the civil revision petitions not maintainable, it should not have proceeded into merits of the case. This observation reinforced the principle that jurisdiction must first exist before substantive adjudication can take place.

However, the Court did not completely reject the possibility of procedural flexibility. It recognized that superior courts possess inherent procedural powers in appropriate cases.

The Supreme Court specifically observed:

“...If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice-versa in exercise of its inherent power.”

This observation became one of the most important procedural principles emerging from the judgment.

The Court clarified that such conversion is not automatic. The Court used the words “appropriate case” and stressed that sufficient grounds must exist for exercise of such inherent power.

The Supreme Court also discussed the nature of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. It referred to the landmark decision in M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company (P.) Ltd. v. Sarup Singh 1969 (3) SCC 807 , where it had been held that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because another view on facts or law is possible. Revisional jurisdiction is confined to jurisdictional errors or material procedural irregularities.

The Court further discussed Ouseph Mathai v. M. Abdul Khadir 2002 (1) SCC 319 where the Supreme Court explained the limited nature of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and held that supervisory powers are meant to keep subordinate courts within bounds of their authority.

The Court also relied upon Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd. v. T.V.K. 1979 (1) SCC 55 Transports and explained that jurisdictional error may arise not only from absence of jurisdiction but also from consideration of irrelevant material or non-consideration of relevant material.

Importantly, the Court clarified that even if revision jurisdiction is unavailable, constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 227 may still remain available. In this context, the Court discussed Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 and recognised the broad supervisory and judicial review powers of High Courts.

The Court also referred to C.V. Rajendran v. N.M. Muhammed Kunhi 2002 (7) SCC 447 regarding applicability of res judicata between different stages of the same proceedings. However, the Court distinguished that case and held that since appeal against final decree was still maintainable, the principle of res judicata would not bar challenge to earlier findings.

Another important procedural aspect discussed was whether direct special leave petitions against orders of the City Civil Court were maintainable. The Court referred to Chandi Prasad Chokhani v. State of Bihar and observed that ordinarily the High Court should not be bypassed.

Ultimately, instead of finally deciding the trust interpretation dispute, the Supreme Court preferred to remand the matter to the High Court so that all pending appeals, revisions and miscellaneous proceedings could be heard together.

Final Decision of the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court should ordinarily not have entered into merits after holding the revision petitions to be non-maintainable. However, instead of conclusively deciding the substantive dispute, the Supreme Court exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and directed that all pending proceedings be reconsidered together by the High Court.

The Court directed return of the special leave petitions so that parties could pursue appropriate remedies before the High Court itself. The High Court was requested to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Thus, the Supreme Court effectively restored procedural balance and ensured that all disputes would be adjudicated in proper appellate proceedings.

Point of Law Settled in the Case:

The judgment settled several important principles of procedural law.

The Supreme Court recognised that High Courts possess inherent power, in appropriate cases, to convert revision petitions into appeals or writ petitions and vice versa, provided jurisdiction otherwise exists and interests of justice so require.

The Court further clarified that once a court concludes that a proceeding is not maintainable, it should ordinarily avoid adjudicating merits unless jurisdiction can otherwise be sustained.

The judgment also reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is limited to jurisdictional errors and material procedural irregularities and cannot function as a substitute for appeal.

Another important principle laid down was that findings on preliminary issues do not automatically amount to decrees unless the suit itself is finally disposed of.

The decision also strengthened the understanding that supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 remains available even where revisional jurisdiction may not exist.

Case Details

Title: Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & Ors. Vs. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & Ors.

Date of Order: 05 March 2009

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 846–851 of 2001

Citation: (2009) 5 SCC 162

Court: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Hon’ble Judges: Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice Cyriac Joseph

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Headnote

The Supreme Court held that although ordinarily a High Court should not decide merits after holding a revision petition to be non-maintainable, the High Court may in appropriate cases convert a revision petition into an appeal or writ petition and vice versa in exercise of inherent powers, provided jurisdiction otherwise exists. The Court further clarified the distinction between appeal, revision and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and held that findings on preliminary issues do not amount to decrees unless the suit is finally disposed of.

SEO Tags

Conversion of revision into appeal, conversion of writ into appeal, revision petition maintainability, Article 227 jurisdiction, Section 115 CPC, supervisory jurisdiction of High Court, appeal vs revision, procedural law India, inherent powers of High Court, civil revision petition, writ petition conversion, maintainability of revision, jurisdictional error, Article 226 and 227, trust deed interpretation, preliminary decree, appealable order, Supreme Court procedural law, High Court powers, Indian Trusts Act, Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan case, civil procedure code India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor