IN THE COURT OF SH.

SANJEEV AGGARWAL
~ ~!STRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-03, SOUTH

~
S~~-="t:~~}--OS ~ ,.-._ _ __.w~
OtSttid Judge lYJllll'll--r'"' .. ,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
$OUttl

q1~ ~ix!'Al-17, ~F= Sk)ci(-1 CS (Comm) 692/2022

Room i·.ru. 17. Tturd" -~ ·~
~c.f>o $Ti il~"· ..,~ lhi
~elf.et court GomJf.tt~t)frMms ..... Plaintiff

Versus

Laxmi Trading and Anr. . .... defendants

08.12.2022 (After Lunch Session)

Present: None for the plaintiff.

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff

u/0 XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC along with another
application u/0 XXVI Rule 9 r/w Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC r/w
Section 151 CPC.

2. Brief facts which can be taken out from the record

are reproduced as under :

1. That the Plaintiff is a Partnership Firm. Plaintiff firm

was established in the year 1962 by Mr. Santoshi Lal Goyal
and his brother, Mr. Prem Chand Goyal. By the passage of
time there has been some change in constitution of
partnership. At present, Mr. Jai Kumar Goyal (son of Mr.
Santoshi Lal Goyal), Ms. Richa Goyal and Ms. Shubhangi
Goyal are the partners of Plaintiff firm. Mr. Jai Kumar
~Goyal being one of the partners of the plaintiff firm is fully
: , .. "'··~,~ . d t . ft t th' . . d if h
/if:fl//.,-_~-:~--~2'~/:~::.ap:li~::;:.::dep::.
1\*'.,\ >\''• ~"ti .
::·~h:~::t, •:f th:•:::. :.:
\.: \
\ ., 'i· \.
\\') (.
~ •'
' •
' )

~ --~ ... ':-,~,:··.·

f
' ct'
:J,_
f,, I

~. ,r /1. R p;i A•l,/ · V, l.m1111 I mi/111~ ,( 11111· l'a~c / ,!f' / 5

'~-...:~ r.;v.,'1 .;~· .,
~::;;.,__....
 do all other acts for the conduct of the instant suit.
2. That the Plaintiff has been engaged in the business of
manufacturing and marketing Mustard Oil, Sarson Khal
(Mustard Cake), Oil Cake & Cattle Feeds (referred to as
the said goods) under the name and style of B.R. Oil Mills
at New Mandi, Main Road Bharatpur (Raj) N.W. Rly. -
321001, Rajasthan (referred to as the said goods and
business).
3. That in the year 1965, plaintiff through its predecessor
honestly and bonafide adopted the trademark RANI
BRAND (word per se) and RANI label comprising of the
Device of Rani in a circle (hereinafter referred to as the said
trade mark/label) in relation to said goods and business and
started using the same in the course of trade. By the
passage of time the plaintiff has time to time made changes
in the packaging of its said goods, however the word/ mark
RANI and device of RANI remained as essential part of the
same. Representation of Plaintiff's said trademark/
label/packaging are as under:

Rani
~
--·
l(A()Ctl
""HO
OtWe MUl'fNID GI,.

:;- -"'.

\4~'- t,

.--
,.n;;;- ....
-n
::1:-
o.-td"
.

IJ. II. Oil Mills V<. l.ax1111 '/iridmg & 1l11r

 r.
,1.r:.

IJ. II. Oil Mills I~<. l.axntt Trading & A11r. l'ageJ of 15
 4. That the Plaintiff has been honestly & bonafidely,
continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively,
uninterruptedly and as proprietor thereof, using its said trade
mark/label in relation to its said goods and business and has
built up a valuable trade, goodwill and reputation there under
and acquired proprietary rights therein. The said
trademark/labels of the plaintiff are duly registered under the
provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999. Details of the said
registrations are as under:

Registra- Date of Class and Goods Status

tion No. App.
And user
claim
I 302931 13/02/1975 Class 29- Mustard Registered

/J. II. Oil Mills v,·. /,OX/Ill fr,1rl,11g & !1111: /'ogc./of/5
 BRAND User claim: Oil Renewed
(Word) 01.01.1965 upto
13.02.2030
1307078 06/09/2004 Class 31- Sarson Registered
User claim: Kha) (Mustard Renewed
08.10.1965 Cake), Oil Cake & upto
Cattle Feed Goods, 06.09.2024
included in Class
31.

The above-mentioned registrations of the Plaintiff are valid,

regular, subsisting and in force. Plaintiff has applied for
legal proceeding certificate relating to the abovementioned
registrations. Plaintiff has taken steps for entering the name
of partners in the said registrations in view of the latest
Partnership Deed.
5. That the artwork involved in the plaintiff's said
trademark/label is original artistic works and the plaintiff is
the owner and proprietor thereof and the copyright
involved therein within the meaning of the Indian
Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff has been dealing with its
said art work/copyright in the course of trade in relation to
its said goods and business inter-alia within the meaning of
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. [All references to the
said trademark/label includes the copyrights involved in the
artwork thereof].
6. That the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the said
trademark/label in relation to the said goods and business
on account of honest and bonafide adoption and prior use.
Plaintiff's said trademark/label is a coined trademark. The
purchasing public, the trade, market and industry at large
identify the Plaintiff's said goods under the said
trademark/labele with the plaintiff and from the Plaintiff's
source and origin alone. The said trademark/label of the

11. ii. Oil Md/.1· I·\. l.11.r11!1 "Jirnlin.~ & i1111:

 plaintiff has become distinctive indicium of the Plaintiff and
has acquired secondary significance with the plaintiff and
the plaintiff's said goods and business.
7. That the said goods and business of the plaintiff
bearing the said trademark/label are highly demanded in
the market on account of their standard quality and
precision. The business carried on by the Plaintiff under the
said trademark/label is a very extensive one and the goods
bearing the said trademark/label of the plaintiff are
practically distributed throughout the length and breadth of
the Country. Plaintiff has already built up a handsome and
valuable trade there under. Year wise sales of the Plaintiff
under the said trademark/label for the last ten years are as
under:

YEAR-WISE SALES FIGURES (RS.)

2012-2013 730232255
2013-2014 866288212
2014-2015 1011060450
2015-2016 1099440440
2016-2017 1235783991
2017-2018 1640027199
2018-2019 1896102190
2019-2020 2091057827
2020-2021 2317038174
2021-2022 2746789124

Plaintiff is placing on record the readily available sales

figure since the year 1965.
8. That the Plaintiff has been promoting his
said goods and business under the said trademark/label
through various means and modes including through
advertisement in leading newspapers, trade magazines
and distribution of trade literature, novelties etc. The
Plaintiff has spent large and substantial sums of money
. :, .'.~~ s publicity and in consequence thereof and having
~·
4 !?. Mi to the aforesaid high standard quality of the
:1( tJ1. i~
P .nt f's said goods and business under the said
'\·
'
';, .,,
,
1..
·_.:.,..,,\\~
*
lP/fi(l.t'1ti·
' •.. /J. II. 8'''t·'"' ,... .a.,1111 1iwl111i:. & Anr l'ai:.e6 of 15
- ~--:.,,
trademark/label enjoys solid, enduring and first class
goodwill and reputation in the markets.
9. The Plaintiff's said goods and business are known,
recognized demanded, sold and traded with reference to
its said trademark/label. The members of the trade,
industry, consumers and general public at large are well
aware of the Plaintiff's said goods and business there-
under. The Plaintiff's said trademark/label is well known
trademark within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the
Trade Mark Act.
10. That the said trademark/label is one of the most
valuable assets of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the proprietor
thereof as also of its goodwill and reputation under the
statutory and common law on account of registration and
honest prior adoption and continuous use since 1965 and
in view thereof the Plaintiff has inter- alia exclusive rights
to use the said trademark/label and nobody can be
permitted to use the same or any deceptively similar
trademark/label thereto in any manner whatsoever
without the leave and license of the Plaintiff.
11. That the Defendants are apparently engaged in
business of manufacturing and marketing of Mustard Oil
(cooking oil) [hereinafter referred to as "impugned
goods" and/or "impugned business"]. To the best of
Plaintiff's knowledge Defendant No. 1 is a Partnership
firm of Mr. Narendra Kumar and Mr. Anand Kumar.
Defendant No. 2 is the manufacturer and packagers of
impugned goods of the defendant no.1. Plaintiff is not
aware of the exact relation, nexus and constitution of the
defendants and the defendants are hereby called upon to
upon causing appearance before the

l'al!,c7of /5
artistic label/device form [Hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "impugned trademark/label or
"trademark/label MAA RANI"! in relation to impugned
goods and business. Representation of the defendants'
impugned trademark/label on the packaging of impugned
goods of the defendants are under:

13. That the impugned trademark/label/device

adopted and being used by the defendants in relation to
their impugned goods and business arc identical with
and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said
trademark/label in each and every respect including
phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in
its essential features. Defendants have copied the get-up
and artistic features involved in the plaintiff's said
trade ma rk/labcl.
14. That the defendants are not the proprietor of the
impugned trademark/label and have adopted and are so
using the same in relation to their impugned goods and

/'age/I of ts
 impugned goods and business of the defendants are also
of the same/similar to that of the plaintiff's.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
16. That the defendants by their impugned adoption
and user of the impugned trademark/label are violating
the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights in the
RANI trademark/label. Defendants by use of the
impugned trademark/label are passing off their impugned
goods and business as that of the plaintiff and are also
enabling others to pass off their goods and business as
that of the plaintiff. Defendants are also diluting the
plaintiff's proprietary rights in the said trademark/label.
Defendants are further infringing the plaintiff's said
trademark/label, which is inter alia duly registered as
detailed above. The defendants are also infringing
plaintiff's copyright in the artwork of said
trademark/label. The defendants cannot be exonerated
from the charges of falsification, unfair and unethical
trade practices.
17. That the defendants are fully aware of the
plaintiffs rights, goodwill, reputations, benefits and users
etc. in the plaintiffs said trademark/label at the time of
their impugned adoption and use of the · impugned
trademark/label. The resemblances between the rival
trademark/label are so close that it can hardly occur
except by deliberate imitation. Defendants are called
upon to explain as to how they hit upon the impugned
trademark/label. Defendants' impugned adoption and
user of the impugned trademark/label is tainted at
inception and is a pirate use of the plaintiffs said
trademark/label.
18. That the defendants have adopted and started
using the impugned trademark/label dishonestly,
fraudulently and out of positive greed with a view to take
advantage and to trade upon the established goodwill,
reputation and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the
plaintiffs said trademark/label. By the defendants'
impugned adoption and use, deception and confusion in
the market is ensuing or is likely to so ensue. The
= · _laintiff's said trademark/label is otherwise being diluted
.;< ' . _· _ ·,~~·
.» rl\ z-.
eclipsed thereby. Any person not knowing clearly the
;/?·: /---.1 -~'ie(,~ nship between the parties to this action is bound to
:1 + c;( \'1:fr b §& fused by the defendants' impugned adoption and
. ·:.· "'\ @~ *
: , :o.....'·'••• "'!;,~ I~
•
-~,,. ~- <:$'~
"':/ "7,pleY.~~<.:
lvffll.<.,.
</3. It-\~~ l.011111 Trading & A11r l'axc9 of 15 .
-:~
use and might do business with the defendants thinking
that he is dealing with the plaintiff or that some strong,
vital and subtle links exist between the plaintiff and the
defendants.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
20. That the plaintiff learnt about the defendants'
impugned trademark/label in the last week of August,
2022 when the plaintiff came across application for
registration of impugned trademark/label filed by the
defendant no.1 in the Trade Mark Journal No. 2051-0
dated 09.05.2022 advertised for public objection. The said
application of defendant no.1 was filed on 09.11.2021 as
proposed to be used. Plaintiff on 07.09.2022 filed notice of
opposition to the said application of clcfcnclant no.1.
Immediately upon coming to know of the said application,
plaintiff also made inquiry in the market and trade which
revealed that the defendants have just started the use of
the impugned trademark/label and are soliciting trade
and business thereunder in South Delhi Market viz.
Saket, Mchrauli, Malviya Nagar, HauzKhas etc. and
adjoining areas ......
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
22. That this Hon'ble Court has the territorial
jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit.
Defendants are soliciting trade and business under the
impugned trademark/label and are supplying their
impugned goods bearing the impugned trademark/label
to the dealers and distributors in the markets of South
Delhi viz. Sakct, Mchrauli, Malviya Nagar, HauzKhas etc.
who are making clandestine and surreptitious sales
thereof to unwary consumers. Hence a part of cause of
action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court. Further the plaintiff is also carrying on its said
goods and business under its said trademark/label in
South Delhi through exclusive dealers and special agent
and has extensive goodwill and reputation under the said
trademark/label on account of voluminous sales within
the jurisdiction of this llon'hk Court. This I lon'ble Court

ounsel for the plainti IT has relied upon the following

l'agc/liof/5
 judgment( s) in support of his contentions :
a) Century Traders Vs. Ros/tan Lal Duggar Co. AIR 1978
Delhi 250;
b) Mis. Maan Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Mis. Mindwave
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. FAO(COMM) 7812022 decided on
12.09.2022.

4. I have heard Sh. Rishi Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the

plaintiff at length and has gone through the relevant record.

5. Having regard to totality of aforenoted reasons, this

court is satisfied that plaintiff has made out a good prima-facie
case for grant of exparte ad-interim relief. The deceptive and
confusing similarity of the defendant's mark/label with that of the
plaintiff, having the effect of causing confusion in the mind of
innocent purchasers. The balance of convenience is also in the
favour of an interim order being passed and this court is further
· satisfied that plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury, if
an ad-interim order is not granted to protect its intellectual
property rights.

6. Consequently, the defendants by themselves as also

through their individual proprietors/partners, agents,
representatives, distributors, assignees, heirs, successors,
stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf are
restrained till next date of hearing from using, manufacturing,
selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any
other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned
trademark/label MAA RANI and/or any other trademark/label
which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the
.. ,_., pJat~iff's trademark RANI BRAND in relation to their
I 1, \'.~ "(~I
,.. *. \ .. , : i- ,, .•.
~

\
\
'
.
-
, I .,.\

:---~
,,.

\., .:J\~ JIJJ.,ifr'l'fi/ls

I~,. l.axnii 7iadi11~ & A111:

~ 1.. 11 >' /~:: .,~

. . , \.?-"/
Pag« II of 15
impugned goods and business of Mustard Oil and all other edible
oil and allied/related products and from doing any other acts or
deeds amount to or likely to in fringing the plaintiffs aforesaid
registered trademark/label "RAN l BRAND"; passing off of their
goods as those of the plaintiff by use of impugned
trademark/label "MAA RANI" and/or copyright in the artwork
thereof in violation of the plaintiff's trademark/label "RANI
BRAND" and copyright in the artwork thereof; and infringing
the plaintiff's copyright in the artwork of "RANI BRAND".

7. As regards, application U/o XXVI Rule 9 r/w Order

XXXIX Rule 7 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC is concerned, Ld.
counsel for the plaintiff has prayed that Local Commissioner is
required to be appointed to visit the premises and godown of
defendants and take in his custody all the impugned goods
including other incriminating materials like stationery, packing
material, pouches, cartons, blocks, containers, display boards,
sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, semi-finished,
packed and unpacked impugned goods or any other documents,
wrapper etc. bearing the impugned trademark/label MAA RANI
and/or any other word/mark/label which may be identical with
and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label
RANI BRAND and to perform all such necessary exercises as
has been prayed in the application.

8. In the aforenoted tacts and circumstances, Shri

Prashant Sharma, Advocate (Mob. No. 9582539602), is
as Local Commissioner for visiting to carry out the
of the premises of defendants at Fatepur By Pass

/'aic 12 {)r /5
Opp. Shiv Medical Hall Siwan, Bihar-841226 with respect to
the allegations of the plaintiff.

9. The Local Commissioner may also visit at any other

place where he has reasons to believe that infringing material
under the impugned trademark identical and similar to that of the
plaintiff which are being stored/used/transferred by the
defendants, to carry out an inspection.

I 0. The traveling expenses of Local Commissioner will

be paid by the plaintiff. The Local Commissioners shall :
(i) visit the abovementioned premises of the defendants and in
their godowns, and take in their custody all the impugned goods
including other incriminating materials like stationery, packing
material, pouches, cartons, blocks, containers, display boards,
sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, semi-finished,
packed and unpacked impugned goods or any other documents,
wrapper etc. bearing the impugned trademark/label "MAA
RANI" and/or any other word/mark/label which may be identical
with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs said
trademark/label "RANI BRAND";
(ii) to visit other premises at the identification of the plaintiff
where the impugned activities are being carried on by or on
behalf of the defendants or where the impugned goods/materials
are expected to be found;
(iii) to sign the account book including ledgers, cash register,

l'age/3 of 15
(v) make an inventory and seize the infringing goods, its

packaging and promotional material, and handover the same to

the defendant/owner on superdari for safe custody and to produce

the same as and when directed by this court;

(vi) to undertake and arrange for photography/videography of the

proceedings and
(vii) to seek police assistance from the local police station, if

required, for execution of the commission. Towards this purpose,

it is ordered that the concerned SP/DSP/1 laqa Station House

Officer (SHO) shall render all assistance required for execution

of this Commission. Local Commissioner shall serve the

defendant with a complete copy of the suit and all the documents

and copy of this order.

11. The fees of the Local Commissioner are fixed to be

Rs.1,25,000/-. The Local Commissioner shall visit the premises

of the defendants within I 5 days from today and will file his

report(s) within ten days of his visit.

12. Plaintiff is directed to supply a copy of the plaint

alongwith documents filed 111 this Court to the local
commissioner for his assistance. Plaintiff shall comply with the
provisions of Order XXXlX Rule 3 CPC as per CPC.
Application U/o XXV! Ruic 9 :111d Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC
r/w Section 15 l CPC staru!: disposed off Copy of the plaint,
alongwith the entire pap-r book shall be served upon the
defendants.

Summons or .hc suit as well as notice of the

l'aKel./of/j
application U/o XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC be issued to the
defendants by all possible modes including electronic mode, on
filing of PF/RC/Speed Post/Courier or on e-mail of the
defendants.

14. The summons shall indicate that the written

statement must be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt
of the summons. Alongwith written statement, defendants shall
also file statement of admission/denial of the documents filed by
the plaintiff as per Order XI CPC r/w as amended by the
Commercial Court Act. The plaintiff is at liberty to file
replication thereto within fifteen days after filing of the written
statement. Replication shall be accompanied by statement of
admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the
defendant. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of
documents or delay in time lines may lead to an order of costs
against the concerned party. Parties shall also appear in person
on next date. Copy of this order be given dasti to the Ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff.

15. Put up on 21.02.2023 for appearance of defendants

(Sanjee:i~al)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-03
South/Saket Courts/New Delhi
_;~~~~~

wiSU'ici Judge (Colr.mercial}-03~

,if<to :m-d Q~. ~ ~ '
~~ C'.oort('~x. N,-., ~

JJ. N. Oil Mi/I.I' v,. t.axnn Trading & 11111: l'age/5 rf /5