Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 1 of 23
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPESH KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLND010037622025
CS (COMM.) No. 391/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
BHARAT SINGH KUSHWAH
… PLAINTIFFS
VERSUS
MANOJ SHARMA & ANR.
… DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. Vide this order, application moved by plaintiff seeking
interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read
with Section 151 CPC, against defendants shall be
disposed off.
2. I have heard the arguments of Sh. D.K.Yadav, ld. Counsel
for plaintiff and Sh. Pravar Sharma, ld. Counsel for
defendants.
3. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff no.1
has adopted the trademark / artistic work/ label
ADVANCE GROWTH / HEATH BOOTI and added
these words with other trademark copyright i.e. JIVAN
HEALTH RAKSHAK / JIVANAM RAKSHAAH /
-- 1 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 2 of 23
STRONG HEALTH RAKSHAH BOOTI HAJMA
CHOORN ETC.
It is further submitted that plaintiff no.1 and 2 are
husband and wife and plaintiff no.3 is brother of plaintiff
no.1. It is further submitted that plaintiff no.1 alongwith
plaintiff no.3 since the year 2012 is manufacturing and
selling its products under the name and Style of M/s Om
Sai Puja Path Swami Ramdev Utpad and license for the
same was obtained under Shop and Establishment Act. It is
further submitted that plaintiff no.3 was manufacturing
Ayurvedic products under the name and style of Sant
Kripa General and Herbal Cosmetic Center and also
obtained licenses for the same under the Shop and
Establishment Act.
It has been further submitted that plaintiff no.1
changed the name of firm to M/s Om Shri Hari Vishnu
Ayurvedic Utpad in the year 2018 and also applied for
GST. Whereas plaintiff no.3 changed the name of its firm
to M/s Shiddhi Herbal Sheva in the year 2018 and also
applied for GST.
It is further submitted that in the year 2023, plaintiff
no.2 entered into business and started running the firm
under the name and style of M/s Shivam Pharmacy and
engaged in trading and business of pharmaceuticals etc.
and also obtained GST certificate. It is further submitted
that plaintiff no.2 is using the tradename of its products by
-- 2 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 3 of 23
prefixing ‘S’ as S Shivam Pharmacy Jivan Health
Rakshak, Advance Growth Powder or S Shivam Pharmacy
Health Growth Powder etc.
It is further submitted that plaintiff no.3 has
obtained trademark of trade logo Hajma Churan under
class 5 on 19.03.2019. It is further submitted that other
trademark with trade logo ‘Advance Growth was obtained
by Mr. Pankaj Kushwah, nephew of plaintiff no.3 and it
was transferred in the name of plaintiff no.3 for which the
defendant has applied for rectification.
It is further submitted that plaintiff is running its
business continuously since 2012 and incurred huge
amount on the advertisement etc. and has substantial sale.
Certain invoices etc. have been filed to substantitate its
contentions in this respect.
It is further submitted that in the year 2025, the
plaintiff came to know that defendant under the impugned
copyright trademark etc. selling the products in market of
Delhi and also soliciting networking of its impugned
products for Amazon etc. It is further submitted that
defendant has prefixed ‘S’ against the trademark of
plaintiff i.e. Jivan Rakshak / Advanced Growth etc. It is
further submitted that defendant is also using the similar
Logo ‘HB Health Booti’ of plaintiff. It is further submitted
that label, color of containers, label color combination
model etc. are similar trademark used by plaintiff. It is
-- 3 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 4 of 23
further submitted that plaintiff is prior user of trademark
and trade dress.
Inter alia, on the basis of these
submissions, prayer has been made to pass ad-interim
injunction against defendants by allowing the present
application.
4.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants has submitted that
defendant no.1 has started its business of manufacturing of
drugs and cosmetics in the year 2014 and has also obtained
license under Drugs and Cosmetics Act on 14.10.2014. It
is further submitted that deendant is running its business
ayurvedic medicines with mark M Satyam Pharmacy Jivan
Rakshak Advance Growth. It is further submitted that for
various products the defendant is using its unique name
with prefixed M with its firm ‘M Satyam Pharmacy’. It is
further submitted that defendant no.1 is selling its different
products with prefixed name of its firm as M Satyam
Pharmacy.
It is further submitted that defendant is in
continuation of its use and sale of defendant has been
increased substantially from 2014-15 till 2024-25.
It has been further submitted that plaintiff is not
entitled for any injunction. Certain grounds have been
mentioned as under :-
i) that licenses obtained by plaintiff under Shop and
Establishment Act in the year 2012 under the name M/s
-- 4 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 5 of 23
Om Sai Pooja Path Swami Ramdev Utpad and Sant Kripa
General and Herbal Cosmetic Center, were not for sale of
Ayurvedic medicines, but were sale of Puja Path Samgri,
Ramdev Ke Utpad General Store Vikray and Herbal
Cosmetic General Goods, respectively.
ii) that plaintiff claim that he is engaged in manufacture
of Ayurvedic medicines since 2012, but for manufacture of
Ayurvedic medicines, the licence under Drugs and
Cosmetic is required to be obtained, but said license was
obtained by plaintiff himself in the year 2023. Since the
plaintiff obtained the license in the year, hence, the
plaintiff could have manufacture the drugs only after
obtaining the said license which falsify the claim of
plaintiff that plaitniff is engaged in manufacturing of
ayurvedic medicines since 2012.
iii) The tax invoices from 2012 to 2016 filed by plaintiff
are not genuine because the same have been issued in the
name of M/s Om Sai Pooja Path Swami Ramdev Utpad
whereas stamp of M/s Om Sai Ram Ayurvedic has been
affixed.
iv) as per registration of trademarks viz. Health Booti
was proposed to be used, meaning by it was not being used
when the application for registration was moved.
v) the trade logo ‘Advance Growth’ was to be used from
14.03.2023 which shows that it was not being used in the
-- 5 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 6 of 23
year 2012, as claimed.
vi) the plaintiff has obtained copyright certificate by
concealing the fact that complaint has already been moved
for the same against the plaintiff and once the complaint
was filed, the plaintiff was required to issue notice to
defendant before filing of application for registration.
vii) the plaintiff has filed the present suit as counter claim
because defendant has already filed petition seeking
cancellation of trademark.
viii) one FIR has already been registered against the
plaintiff for manufacturing the ayurvedic drugs without
license.
On the basis of these submissions it has been
submitted that plaintiff has failed on record the cogent
material that plaintiff is prior user of the trademark in
question. It is further vehemently submitted that since
defendant has filed drug license and other documents to
show that defendant is engaged in using the trademark /
copyright since 2014. On the basis of these submissions
prayer has been made to dismiss the application.
5. Heard. Material perused.
6. It is relevant to reproduce the brief facts of the matter as
emerged from pleadings of parties.
The present suit has been filed by plaintiff no. 1 qua
-- 6 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 7 of 23
himself and being Special Power of holder of plaintiff nos.
2 and 3. Plaintiff no.1 and 2 are husband and wife and
plaintiff no.3 is brother of plaintiff no.1. Plaintiffs are
engaged in trade and business of pharmaceuticals,
veterinary, homeopathic, ayurvedic dietary supplements
etc. under name and style of
M/s Om Sai Pooja Path
Swami Ramdev Utpad. Plaintiff no. 3 was the
manufacturer of ayurvedic products under name and style
of
M/s Sant Kripa General & Herbal Cosmetic Center.
Plaintiff no. 1 was retailer/wholesaler for the Ayurvedic
product under Trademark/copyright since the year of 2012.
Thereafter, the plaintiff no. 1 changed his firm name and
started working as
M/s Om Shri Hari Vishnu Ayurvedic
Utpad and continued with the same tradename. It is
submitted that GST Certificate was issued in the name of
Om Shri Hari Vishnu Ayurvedic Utpad in the year 2018.
Plaintiff no.3 also changed firm name and started
working as M/s Shiddhi Herbel Sheva and applied for the
GST certificate in the year of 2018, and continued with the
same tradename ADVANCE GROWTH/ HEALTH
BOOTI/ HEALTH BOOTY PLUS/ SHIDDHI HERBAL
SHEVA.
It has been submitted that in the year of 2023,
plaintiff no. 2, who is wife of plaintiff no. 1, has also
started the business of wholesaler and running business
under name and style of M/S Shivam Pharmacy and
-- 7 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 8 of 23
engaged in the trade and business of Pharmaceutical,
veterinary, homeopathic, ayurvedic, herbal medicinal and
sanitary preparations etc.
It has been further submitted that the plaintiff no. 3
applied for the trademark for said product and was
registered under Class 5 as Herbal Medicine vide dated
19.03.2019, Trade Logo HAJMA CHURAN.
It has been further submitted that the plaintiff no. 3
has filed one Trademark application vide application
number 5449879 in the name of his Nephew Pankaj
Kushwaha which was also registered under the trademark
and was transferred to plaintiff no. 3. However, defendant
has applied for its rectification which is pending
adjudication.
It has been further submitted that the plaintiffs
applied for the registration of trademark of certain products and
some of them have been duly registered under Trademark
Act,1999.
It has been further submitted that the plaintiffs are
doing business under trademark/copyright/artistic
work/label JIVANAM RAKSHAAH , OM
SHRI HARI VISHNU AYURVEDIC STORNG HEALTH
RAKASHAH BOOTI HAJMA CHOORN
, OM SHRI HARI VISHNU \
-- 8 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 9 of 23
AYURVEDIC ACTIVE BODY GROWTH PROTEIN
POWDER , S SHIVAM PHAMACY JIVAN
HEALTH RAKSHAK ADVANCE BODY GROWTH
POWDER HEALTHY BODY GROWTH
POWDER , SWASTH SHAKTI SMART BODYPLUS
HAJMA CHURN , HEALTH
BOOTY WITH HB , HEALTH BOOTY
HAJAMACHURAN (A
ADVANCE GROWTH HEALTH BOOTY ,
SHIDDHI HERBAL SHEVA.
It has been further submitted that plaintiff invested
huge amount for promotion, publicity and marketing and the
incurred total expenses of Rs. 1,99,788 in the year 2023 and
2024 and Rs. 78,888/- in the year 2024-2025. It has been
further submitted that the joint sales revenue for the year
2022-2023 was Rs. 63,00,000/- and in the year 2024-2025
was 18,49,206/-.
It has been further submitted that in April, 2025,
plaintiff came to know that defendants are selling,
soliciting and networking its impugned goods under the
-- 9 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 10 of 23
impugned trademark/label/domain name i.e. https://www.
ethicalbygiene.in and started misuse the trademark of
plaintiff i.e., “ADVANCE GROWTH/ HEALTH
BOOTI /JIVAN HEALTH RAKASHAK / JIVANAM
RAKSHAAH /STORNG HEALTH RAKASHAH BOOTI
HAJMA CHOORN / ACTIVE BODY GROWTH
PROTEIN POWDER / JIVAN HEALTH RAKSHAK
ADVANCE BODY GROWTH POWDER / HEALTHY
BODY GROWTH POWDER/ S.BAHOOVALI BODY”.
It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1
has applied for trademark/copyright/artistic work/label
which have been either refused or registered. The details of
the said trademarks are as under:-
-- 10 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 11 of 23
Impugned mark Plaintiffs’ mark
S MSATYAM PHARMACY JIVAN
RAKSHAK ADVANCED GROWTH
POWDER
(S.)m JIVANAM RAKSHAAH”
-- 11 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 12 of 23
It has been further submitted that defendant no.1 has
applied for trademark / copyright / artistic work / label which
have been either refused or registered. The details of said
trademarks are as under : -
S/N TRADEMARK APPLICATION
NO.
STATUS DEVICE
1. S JIVAN
RAKSHAK
ADVANCED
GROWTH
CAPSULE
3463079 Refused
2. S MSATYAM
PHARMACY
JIVAN
RAKSHAK
ADVANCED
GROWTH
POWDER
4785815 Abandoned
3. HEALTH
BUTI HAZMA
CHURAN
5946233 Pending
7. The defendants contested the present application by
filing written statement. In his written statement, defendant
made preliminary submissions that defendant no. 1 is
owner and proprietor of M/s M. Satyam Pharmecy and
defendant no. 2 is the container supplier of defendant no.
1. It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1 is
carrying the business as manufacturer and marketer of
‘Medicines, Pharmaceuticals, Ayurvedic Preparations and
other allied and cognate goods’ since long and not limited
to JEEVAN RAKSHAK', 'JEEVAN SANJEEVANI',
'ADVANCE GROWTH POWDER', 'HELICOPTER
BALM', 'GOOD HEALTH POWDER', 'HEALTH BUTI
-- 12 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 13 of 23
POWDER', 'NAV JIVAN POWDER', 'JIVAN RAKSHAK
ADVANCED GROWTH PLUS POWDER', 'JIVAN
RAKSHAK ADVANCED GROWTH GOLD POWDER',
JEEVAN RAKSHAK HEALTH GROWTH POWDER',
JEEVAN RAKSHAK BODY PLUS POWDER', 'JEEVAN
RAKSHAK SHAKTI RATAN POWDER', 'JEEVAN
RAKSHAK LUCO-37 CAPSULE', 'JEEVAN RAKSHAK
ADVANCED GROWTH POWDER', 'JEEVAN
RAKSHAK ADVANCED GROWTH PLUS POWDER',
etc.
It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1
has obtained Drug License in the year 14.10.2024 and
starter producing Ayurvedic Medicines in the name of ‘M
SATYAM PHARMACY JIVAN RAKSHAK ADVANCE
GROWTH’. Mark JEEVAN RAKSHAK was also used in
various formative marks such as 'JEEVAN RAKSHAK
HEALTH GROWTH POWDER', JEEVAN RAKSHAK
BODY PLUS POWDER, JEEVAN RAKSHAK SHAKTI
RATAN POWDER, JEEVAN RAKSHAK LUCO-37
CAPSULE, 'JEEVAN RAKSHAK ADVANCED
GROWTH POWDER, JEEVAN RAKSHAK
ADVANCED GROWTH PLUS POWDER'.
It has been further submitted that defendant No.1
sells its renowned product JIVAN RAKSHAK
ADVANCED BODY GROWTH POWDER with the
prefix 'M SATYAM PHARMACY' in trade dress/label
bearing artistic work and is making use of the same in
-- 13 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 14 of 23
relation to its products. It has been further submitted that
defendant No.1 is using the said trademark along with the
artistic label since the year 2014 for the sale of its
renowned HEALTH BUTI POWDER product under the
trademark JIVAN RAKSHA HEALTH BUTI back in
2014. It has been further submitted that in the year 2014
itself, the defendant No.1 decided to turn HEALTH BUTI
into a separate trademark and the same was also placed on
record as a separate product within the scope of the drug
license renewed in Defendant No.1's name for 2019-2024
with the artwork. It has been further submitted that
defendant No.1 is using the said trademark along with the
artistic label since the year 2014 for the sale of its
renowned JIVAN RAKSHAK ADVANCED GROWTH
POWDER product. It has been further submitted that
products of defendant No.1 are consistently recognized by
the aforementioned trademarks and the label bearing
artistic work and these brand names are prominently
featured on the product packaging. It has been further
submitted that defendant No.1 affirms that the artistic
work associated with its products have been widely
promoted through various means, including newspaper
advertisements and through e-commerce websites and the
artistic work associated with its products effectively
identify and distinguish the Defendant No.1's products
from those of other manufacturers. It has been further
submitted that the goods of defendant no.1 marketed under
-- 14 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 15 of 23
the said label bearing the artistic work enjoy substantial
goodwill and a strong holding in the commercial market
and pharmaceutical sector and are closely linked with the
defendant No.1 enterprise.
It has been further submitted that sales figures of
defendant no. 1 in the financial year 2014-2015 was
Rs.1,71,270/- which increased Rs. 89,94,850/- in the year
2024.2025. It has further submitted that defendant
advertised its product in the various nationalized
newspapers. Defendant no.1 has also filed certain invoices
to prove the fact that defendant no. 1 is engaged in the
business of selling the products. It has been further
submitted that defendant no. 1 purchased items for
manufacturing the products and also placed on record
certain invoices for the same.
It has further submitted that in the month of April,
2023, defendant no. 1 came to know that plaintiffs are
engaged in using the copyright/trademarks of the
defendant no. 1 qua which the defendant no. had made a
complaint and an FIR at Crime no. 285/2023 was
registered in PS Thatipur, Gwalior against the plaintiffs. It
has further submitted that since plaintiffs were not having
the necessary license under Drugs & Cosmetic Act, the
police authorities and Ayush Department took necessary
action against plaintiff and seized various infringed
packaging of Drugs.
It has been further submitted that defendant no. 1
-- 15 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 16 of 23
adopted impugned trademark prior to plaintiff.
In respect of defendant no. 2, it has been submitted
that he is simply a supplier of standardized unlabeled
plastic containers to defendant no. 2 and has no role
whatsoever in the impugned trademark.
In preliminary objections, it has been submitted that
prior to filing of the present suit, plaintiff and defendant
no. 1 has already applied copyright cancellation. It has
been further submitted that since the plaintiff is engaged in
manufacturing the Ayurvedic medicine for which the
proper valid license is required under the Drugs &
Cosmetic Act, 1940 but the same has not been obtained by
the plaintiff. It has been further submitted that defendant
no. 1 has already filed petition before Registrar of
Trademark qua the rectification of trademarks which were
issued in the name of plaintiff. It has been further
submitted that plaintiff has filed false and fabricated
invoices. It has been further submitted that plaintiff has
suppressed the material facts and issues.
On merits, the preliminary objections were
reiterated and contents of plaint were generally denied and
prayer has been made to dismiss the suit.
8. Arguments on application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC heard.
9. Before proceeding ahead, for ready reference Section 29 of
-- 16 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 17 of 23
the Trade Mark Act is reproduced, which is as under :
29. Infringement of registered trade marks.—
(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not
being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of
permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is
identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in
relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade
mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of
the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.(2)A
registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being
a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted
use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of—
a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity
of the goods or services covered by such registered trade
mark; or
b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or
similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered
trade mark; or
c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of
the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark,is
likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is
likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
3) In any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2), the
court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the
part of the public.
4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not
being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of
permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which—
a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and
b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not
similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the
use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or
-- 17 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 18 of 23
is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the
registered trade mark.
5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses
such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his
trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the
name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in
respect of which the trade mark is registered.
6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered
mark, if, in particular, he—
a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market,
or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade
mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade
mark;
c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in
advertising.
7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who
applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be
used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or
for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when
he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the
application of the mark was not duly authorised by the
proprietor or a licensee.
8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of
that trade mark if such advertising—
a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices
in industrial or commercial matters; or
b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.
9) Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark
consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed
-- 18 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 19 of 23
by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual
representation and reference in this section to the use of a
mark shall be construed accordingly.
From the plain reading of this Section, it is found
that when a registered trademark is used by a person who
is not entitled or authorized to use the said trademark, it
constitute infringement and the registered proprietor of
trademark is entitled for injunction.
Now the question arises whether the registered
owner with registration of trademark has exclusive right to
use the trademark and the other person, if any, under all
eventualities cannot use the said trademark. The answer to
this question is in negative because as per Section 34 of the
Trade Mark Act, exclusive right confer by registration is
subject to prior user.
10. Reverting to the present matter, the plaintiff has brought
on record registration certificate of trademark dated
19.03.2019 registered under class 5 of herbal medicine of
trade logo ‘HB Health Booty Hajma Churan’. Further, the
plaintiff has also brought on record the trademark dated
23.11.2021 of mark ‘AG Advance Growth’.
As held earlier, as per Section 34 of Trade Mark
Act, with simply with registration of trademark, one
person cannot claim the exclusive right without proving
that he is also prior user of said trademark. The reliance in
this respect can be made in case
Century Traders vs
Roshan Lal Duggar Company, Manu/DE/0153/1977 relied
-- 19 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 20 of 23
upon by Ld. Counsel for defendants.
Now the question arises what documents have been
brought on record which, prima facie, shows that which of
the party has started using the trademark in question and
when.
11. Before proceeding ahead, it is necessary to mention that in
case both the products i.e. product of plaintiff and
defendant are kept together for comparison, it is found that
apart from the use of word ‘S’ prefixed by plaintiff against
its firm M/s S Shivam Pharmacy, and the word M prefixed
by the defendant against its products M Satyam Pharmacy,
the color combination of words, the font of words, style of
words, trade dress, trade logo, background color etc. are
similar. Even the containers used by both parties are
similar. No doubt, in case both products are kept together,
definitely confusion would create in mind of customers as
to genuineness of the products. This discussion leads to
conclusion that both products are deceptively similar to
each other.
12. Now coming back to the question as to who is the prior
user. In this respect, Ld. counsel for defendant has
vehemently submitted that since the plainiff has obtained
the drug license in year 2023, then how he can claim that
he is using the trademark since 2012. In this respect in case
Kamal Raheja vs Hahnemann Pure Drug Co. 2025 SCC
-- 20 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 21 of 23
Online Del 7718, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has inter alia,
held as under : -
18. Besides, the cancellation of licence of the
respondent has taken place under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act. The respondent may have his
remedies against such cancellation and we cannot, at
this stage; predict as to whether that cancellation
would persist forever.
19. The right to seek relief against infringement,
under Section 28(1) read with Section 135(1) of the
Trade Marks Act cannot, in any event, be sacrificed
at the altar of user.
20. The fact that the respondent may, consequent to
the decision of the authority under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, have adopted another mark is also
no embargo on the respondent asserting his right
against infringement consequent to the registration
of the mark ‘MARKS GO’.
In view of this judgment, it is found that registration
of trademark or use of trademark is different aspect and
obtaining license is different. Under these circumstances,
even if the plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing
ayurvedic drugs prior to obtaining license, it does not
affect its right over trademark. The manufacturing of drugs
without license may attract some penal clause but does not
affect the right over trademark of rightful owner.
13. In respect to plea of Ld. Counsel for defendant that
licenses obtained by plaintiffs in the year 2012 under Shop
and Establishment Act were sale of other material; the tax
invoices filed by plaintiffs from 2012-16 are not genuine;
whether the plaintiff was using trademark Health Booty
-- 21 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 22 of 23
and logo Advance Growth in the year 2012, can be
considered only after the parties are granted opportunity to
lead evidence on these points because for deciding all
these facts detailed inquiry is required for which the parties
should be granted opportunity to lead evidence. At this
stage, the court is required to see, prima facie, of the
matter and by bringing of record these documents, the
plaintiff intend to show that he is prior user of the same.
This fact would be decided alongwith other material at
appropriate stage.
14. Further, the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant was
that an FIR was regisered against plaintiff and plaintiff has
obtained registration of copyright by concealing the
material fact that complaint has already been filed against
plaintiff. On this aspect, it is found that once the party has
obtained copyright of any material, till it is cancelled, the
registration of the same cannot be brushed aside. Hence,
the defendant is not entitled for any benefit at this stage.
15. In the light of above discussion, it is found that by bringing
on record the documents viz. License issued under Shop
and Establishment Act in the name of firms of plaintiff
no.1 and 3, GST certificates issued in the name of firms of
plaintiffs, trademark registration certificates, invoices in
respect to continuation of business etc., shows that plaintiff
is using trademark/ trade dress/ copyright since 2012, and
-- 22 of 23 --
CS (COMM.)/391/2025 Page 23 of 23
prima facie, case lies in favor of plaintiffs. Accordingly,
balance of convenience also lies in favor of plaintiffs.
Further, the plaintiffs may suffer irreparable loss in case
the defendants are not restrained from using the registered
trademarks / trade logo of plaintiff and the other
trademarks of plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the defendants and all others acting on
their behalf are restraining from using, selling, soliciting,
displaying, publishing, reproducing, exhibiting, advertising
or in any other manner or mode dealing in or using the
impugned trademark or any other trade mark ‘M
SATYAM PHARMACY JIVAN RAKSHAK ADVANCE
GROWTH, JEEVAN RAKSHAK such as 'JEEVAN
RAKSHAK HEALTH GROWTH POWDER', JEEVAN
RAKSHAK BODY PLUS POWDER, JEEVAN
RAKSHAK SHAKTI RATAN POWDER, JEEVAN
RAKSHAK LUCO-37 CAPSULE, 'JEEVAN RAKSHAK
ADVANCED GROWTH POWDER, JEEVAN
RAKSHAK ADVANCED GROWTH PLUS POWDER' /
trade logo HB Health Booti / Advance Growth identical or
any other trade name / trademarks etc. deceptively similar
to that of plaintiff’s said trademarks / tradename / trade
logo / trade dress, till disposal of the suit. Application
stand disposed off accordingly.
Copy of this order be given
Dasti.
(Bhupesh Kumar)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/15.12.2025
-- 23 of 23 --