Delhi HC: Proprietor of a Trademark Cannot Enjoy Monopoly Over the Entire Class of Goods

Must Read

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Follow us

The Court explained that trademark in respect of  ‘certain goods’ among a class of goods does not cover all the goods of the same class.

Brief Facts 

Mittal Electronics (Plaintiff) sought an injunction to prevent the Defendants from dealing under the trademark ‘Star SUJATA’ or ‘SUJATA’. The Plaintiff found their trademark to be identical and similar.

The Delhi High Court had passed an ad-interim injunction in February and ordered reports from the Local Commissioners.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Plaintiff adopted the trademark ‘SUJATA’ in the year 1980 after which their business was expanded to electrical goods and home appliances. From 1991 to 2018, the Plaintiff owned the registered trademark ‘SUJATA.’ It has had huge sales under the trademark and also spends a large amount on its advertising.

They stated that both parties used the same trademark for the sale of home and kitchen appliances and that the products are used by the same consumers and are sold through the same outlet.

Respondent’s Arguments


Mr Kumar has had a proprietorship firm, Luxmi Enterprises since 2008. Defendant No. 1, the company Sujata Home Appliances, was formed to expand his business. It was incorporated with his relatives as Director, but later he also became one of the Directors. 

Sujata Home Appliances entered into a license agreement with Luxmi Enterprises. In the application for the registration of Sujata Home Appliances, Mr Kumar stated that he was the user of the trademark ‘SUJATA’ since 2008 for water purifiers. He had been granted trademark registration of ‘SUJATA’ in 2012 for the manufacture and sale of water purifiers, RO system, and water filters.

The fact that defendant No. 1 is the prior user of the mark ‘SUJATA’ with respect to Water Purifiers, RO Systems, and Water Filters was concealed from the Court in earlier proceedings.

The defendant, therefore, sought modification of the injunction order against water purifiers, water filters, and RO systems alone and not in respect of all other goods. 

Court’s Observations

The Plaintiff’s registration of the trademark ‘SUJATA’, which includes water filters, water purifiers, and RO systems was after that of the Defendant.

The Bench noted that in the past several years, there has not been any proof of confusion in the customers about the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s products.

For the goods water filters, water purifiers, and RO System, Mr Kumar is the licensor as the Director of Defendant No.1 is the prior registered owner and only user of the mark SUJATA. The plaintiff, till date, has not used the mark ‘SUJATA’ for water filters, water purifiers, and RO system. The goods of the plaintiff and defendant fall in the same broad classification of home appliances. But they are different goods used for different purposes.

Court’s Decision

The Court ruled that the defendants can continue to manufacture and sell under the trademark ‘SUJATA’.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -