Delhi District Court
Vijay Kumar Gupta vs Laxmi Chand Ahuja on 24 February, 2026
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: DISTRICT JUDGE:
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-008772-2024
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024
In the matter of:-
Vijay Kumar Gupta,
Trading as M/s Balaji International
At: Teliyagarah Goshainganj Post,
Amsin, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh-224141.
.....Plaintiff No.1
Jai Balaji Surfactants LLP,
Through its Authorised Representative
At: Gadopur Industrial Estate,
Plot No. HC-9, Pargana Haveli Awadh,
Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh-224001.
....Plaintiff No. 2
Versus
Laxmi Chand Ahuja,
Trading as: M/s S.B. Chemicals
At: B-10, Bajrangbali,
Site-4, Panki, Kanpur, U.P- 208020.
.....Defendant No. 1
Rohit Agarwal,
Rani Bazar, Bargaon,
Purani Gala Mandi, Pili Kothi,
Near Raju Lala Transport,
Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271002.
.....Defendant No. 2
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
YADAV
YADAV Date: 2026.02.24
17:10:50 +0530
Page 1 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Date of Institution of Suit : 18.09.2024
Date of filing of Application U/o XIII-A CPC : 08.01.2025
Date of hearing arguments on said application : 17.02.2026
Date of judgment : 24.02.2026
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT
AND PASSING OFF OF THE TRADEMARK AND COPYRIGHT AND FOR
DELIVERY UP; RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DAMAGES ETC.
24.02.2026:
JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF ORDER XIII-A CPC
1. This is a suit filed by plaintiff, inter alia seeking a decree of
permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, copyright,
passing off, damages and rendition of accounts etc.
2. The facts of the case in brief, required for the purpose of
disposal of application under Order XIII-A CPC are that plaintiff No.1 is a
proprietorship, trading as M/s Balaji International while plaintiff No.2 is a
Limited Liability Partnership, duly incorporated under the provisions of
the Companies Act, 2013. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of
manufacturing, marketing and exporting of detergent soap, detergent cake,
detergent washing powder etc. along with other allied and cognate goods.
3. (i) It has been stated that in the year 2010, plaintiff No.1/Vijay
Kumar Gupta, as sole proprietor started trading as M/s Balaji International,
and in the course of trade with honest and bonafide intentions adopted and
started using the trade mark "TIRANGA" in relation to detergent powder
and soap.
Page 2 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
(ii) It has been further stated that in the year 2017, subsequent to
its adoption and in the course of reorganizing its business, plaintiff No.1
founded a partnership firm by the name of M/s Jai Balaji Surfactants LLP
i.e., Plaintiff No.2. The partnership firm has two other partners namely
Mr.Pritam Kumar and Mr.Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, who have a minor stake
holding in the firm. Thereafter, in the year 2017 in order to streamline its
business operation, plaintiff No.1 permitted plaintiff No.2 to use the
trademarks for manufacturing, sale, soliciting and advertisement of its
products under the its trademark "TIRANGA" vide Permission letter dated
26.05.2017.
4. It has been further stated that in their course of business,
plaintiff(s) also coined conceived and adopted the trademark/label/artistic
work/packaging "TIRANGA / TORANGA /
TALASH " and other formative trademarks in relation to the
goods detergent soap, detergent cake, detergent washing powder etc. and
started doing business of manufacturing, marketing and trading of the said
goods under in the open market.
Page 3 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
5. It has been contended that since the year 2010, plaintiff's
have been continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and to the
exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in the course of trade and as
proprietor thereof, using its said Trademark/Label/Trade
Dress/Packaging/Artistic Work "TIRANGA" and other formative enjoy an
exclusive monopoly over the same.
6. (i) It has been further stated that plaintiffs have filed numerous
applications for registration of trademark/device/label
TIRANGA/TORANGA/TALASH and other formative marks in Class 3
and 35 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the details
whereof is provided hereunder:
S. Trademark Class Date of User Status
No. Application No. Application Details
1. 2412809 03 17.10.2012 20.05.2012 Abandoned
TIRANGA
(Word per se)
2. 3478237 03 09.02.2017 01.04.2013 Refused
TIRANGA
(Word Per se)
3. 3697242 03 07.12.2017 Proposed to Abandoned
SUSTIRANGA be used
(Word Per se)
4. 4200589 03 07.06.2019 Proposed to Opposed
Page 4 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
TALASH TIRANGA be used
(Device)
5. 5910639 03 26.04.2023 Proposed to Registered
TORANGA be used
(Word Per se)
6. 6538494 35 22.07.2024 27.09.2010 Formalities
TIRANGA Chk Pass
7. 6538495 35 22.07.2024 Proposed to Formalities
TORANGA be used Chk Pass
8. 6538496 35 22.07.2024 04.06.2018 Formalities
TALASH Chk Pass
Page 5 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
9. 6477024 03 12.06.2024 27.09.2010 Objected
TIRANGA
(ii) Plaintiff No.1 has also filed Trademark application for its
mark TIRANGA/ , having Application No.6477024 under
Class 3 with user claim from 27.09.2010 before the Trademark Registry.
7. (i) It has been contended that plaintiffs represent its trademark
TIRANGA/TORANGA label in an artistic manner including in its getup,
lettering style, colour combination and pattern of letters, overall colour
scheme of the package, placement of words, artistic features etc. The art
work involved therein is unique and exclusive.
(ii) It has been next contended that said Trademark/Label/Trade
Dress/Packaging/Artistic Work "TIRANGA/TORANGA" has already
Page 6 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
become a distinctive indicium of plaintiffs' said business & goods there
under. It has been claimed that artistic work involved in the plaintiffs' said
trademark TIRANGA and TORANGA is an original art work within the
meaning of the Copyright Act 1957.
8. It has been further stated that in addition to the artistic
work/packaging style adopted by the plaintiffs for its business under the
mark "TIRANGA/TORANGA", plaintiffs have also adopted a
tagline/slogan/literary work "समझदारी एक बार कपड़े की सुरक्षा लगातार/
SAMJHDARI EK BAR KAPDO KI SURAKHA LAGATAR". It is
claimed that plaintiffs are the proprietor, prior and senior adopter and user
of said Trademark/Label/Trade Dress/Packaging/Artistic Work/
Tagline/Slogan/Literary work TIRANGA/TORANGA along with the
tagline समझदारी एक बार कपड़े की सुरक्षा लगातार/ SAMJHDARI EK BAR
KAPDO KI SURAKHA LAGATAR.
9. (i) It has been next averred that with the advent of e-commerce
and increasing popularity of the internet and digitization, plaintiffs adopted
domain name i.e., www.tirangasurf.com and also displaying its said
product under the said Trademark/Label/Trade Dress/Packaging/Artistic
Work/ Tagline/Slogan/Literary work TIRANGA/TORANGA along with
the tagline समझदारी एक बार कपड़े की सुरक्षा लगातार/ SAMJHDARI EK BAR
KAPDO KI SURAKHA LAGATAR on the internet through its web site
under domain name namely www.tirangasurf.com.
Page 7 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
(ii) It has been claimed that the plaintiff also solicits, displays,
promotes its goods through various e-commerce cum interactive websites
namely www.indiamart.com, www.amazon.com, etc. The screen shot of
the plaintiff's website as well as e-commerce interactive websites
displaying and selling the goods of the plaintiff under the said
trademark/label are being depicted in paragraphs No.23 and 24 of the
plaint.
10. It has been emphasized that by reason of extensive
advertisement and promotional activities coupled with excellent quality
and the high standards of the plaintiff's business and goods, the trade level
of the plaintiff enjoys solid, enduring and first-class reputation in the
market. The business and goods under the said trademark/label are
distinctive indicium of the plaintiff and has acquired secondary
significance. It is claimed that the plaintiff's said Trademark/Label has
strong goodwill and reputation in India within the meaning of Section 29
(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
11. (i) Defendant No.1 Laxmi Chand Ahuja is stated to be proprietor
of M/s S.B. Chemicals. Defendants are stated to be engaged in the
identical trade and business of manufacturing and marketing of soap,
washing powder, detergent powder and detergent cake.
(ii) It has been claimed that defendant with a mala-fide intention
and to pass on its products, as those of the plaintiff, has malafidely and
deliberately adopted the identical Trademark/label/ trade-dress/packaging/
Page 8 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
color combination/ artistic work SANTRIJI KA TIRANGA/ /
in relation to the impugned goods and business which is
identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well recognized
trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/ artistic work
"TIRANGA/ " and "TORANGA " along with the
tagline समझदारी एक बार कपड़े की सुरक्षा लगातार/ SAMJHDARI EK BAR
KAPDO KI SURAKHA LAGATAR.
(iii) It has been claimed that defendant No.1 in collusion with the
defendant No.2 is involved in the violation of the plaintiffs proprietary
rights in its trademark "TIRANGA/TORANGA" and other formative
marks.
12. (i) It has been averred that defendant No.1 has filed a trademark
Application under Class 03 for the impugned trademark/label "SANTRIJI
KA TIRANGA" bearing Application No.6428003 with user claim of
14.04.2011 on all India basis. The plaintiffs have filed an Interlocutory
Page 9 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Petition on 15.07.2024 for intervention in registration of the impugned
mark, stating the reason that the plaintiffs are the prior, bonafide, senior
user of the Trademark TALASH TIRANGA/ .
(ii) It has been contended that defendant No.1 had also filed
another application dated 13.01.2016 for registration of the
Trademark/label "SANTARI WASHING POWDER/ " in
Class 03 for washing powder on all India Basis claiming user since
10.04.2015 and the said trademark Application No.3158496 got
registration in the name of defendant No.1 by the concerned Trademark
Registry. The plaintiffs claimed that they have no objection with regard to
use of trademark/label "SANTARI WASHING POWDER/ "
by defendant No.1. The details of the impugned trademark applications
filed by defendant No.1 are mentioned hereunder:
Page 10 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
APPLICATION NO. CLASS DATE OF USER STATUS
APPLICATION CLAIM
6428003 03 11.05.2024 14.04.2011 Formalities
SANTRIJI KA TIRANGA Chk Pass
3158496 03 13.01.2016 10.04.2015 Registered
SANTARI WASHING
POWDER
(iii) It has been next contended that defendant No.1 also played
fraud with the Trademark Registry in Trademark Application No.6428003
by claiming alleged user of the impugned Trademark/label by filing forged
and fabricated invoices by replacing the impugned Trademark "SANTARI
JI KATIRANGA" from the original invoice issued for sale of goods under
the mark "ARB Washing Powder". A copy of such Invoice for ready
reference is annexed with this order as "Annexure-I".
Page 11 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
13. (i) It has been alleged that in the month of July' 2024, plaintiffs
came to know about the impugned Trademark application bearing
No.6428003 of defendant No.1 and immediately filed an Interlocutory
Petition on 15.07.2024. It has been further claimed that in the first week
September' 2024, when the plaintiffs came to know about the execution of
the Local Commission at the premises of the defendant No.1 for the
manufacturing and sale of other impugned marks for the infringing goods
in "CS (Comm.) No.525/2024", the plaintiffs conducted a market survey
and subsequently the indulgence of the defendants in the impugned activity
under the impugned trademark/label/packaging/trade dress came to its
fore.
(ii) It has been further contended that defendants have been
making clandestine and surreptitious sales and are supplying, soliciting and
displaying its impugned trade mark/label/trade dress/packaging/ artistic
work to the dealers and distributors in the markets of Delhi, including
North-west District areas i.e, Keshav Puram, Rani Bagh, Subhash Palace,
Bharat Nagar, Ashok Vihar, Aman Vihar, Rohini, etc. besides other parts of
the country.
14. It has been averred that defendants are not the proprietor of
the impugned Trademark/label and artistic feature/label/packaging/trade
dress and by commercially using the same, it is not only damaging the
reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by passing off their substandard
products as that of the plaintiff, but are also causing financial loss to the
plaintiff by reaping unfair advantage of the repute and distinctive character
of the trademark of the plaintiff.
Page 12 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
15. (i) It is worthwhile to note here that alongwith the plaint, plaintiff
also preferred an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, inter
alia praying for ad-interim ex-parte injunction. Vide order dated
18.09.2024, the said application was allowed and following order was
passed:
xxxxx
25. For the forgoing reasons and till further
orders, the defendants by themselves as also through
their individual proprietor/partners, agents,
representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs,
successors, stockists and all others acting for and on
their behalf are hereby restrained from using,
selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising
or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using
the impugned trademark/label/trade
dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work
"SANTRIJI KA TIRANGA / /
" or any other trade mark/label which
may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to
the plaintiffs' said trade mark/label/trade
dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic
work"TIRANGA/ / TORANGA "
Page 13 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
along with tagline/slogan/literary work समझदारी एक
बार कपड़े की सुरक्षा लगातार/ SAMJHDARI EK BAR
KAPDO KI SURAKHA LAGATAR and other
formative marks in relation to their impugned goods
and business of washing powder, detergent powder,
detergent cake, soap etc., and other allied and
cognate or from doing any other acts or deeds,
thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademarks
and passing off their products as that of plaintiffs.
xxxxx
(ii) Further, vide order dated 18.09.2024 itself, the application
moved by plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC inter alia seeking
appointment of Local Commissioner was also allowed. Consequently, Shri
Shivam Mehta, Advocate and Shri Plash Jindal, Advocate were appointed
as "Local Commissioners" with the directions to visit premises of both the
defendants.
(iii) A fair amount of infringing material was recovered from the
premises of defendant No.1, however, the defendant No.2 did not co-
operate and as such, the commission could not be executed at his premises.
16. After getting served, written statement was filed by the
defendants, wherein it was claimed that there is no phonetic similarity
between the marks of both the parties; this Court do not have territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. It was, however, admitted that
defendant No.1 had already applied for registration of trademark/
label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work "SANTRIJI
Page 14 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
KA TIRANGA / for being used on all India basis, but so far
even the publication thereof has not been done by the Trade Mark Registry.
17. Plaintiff filed replication inter alia denying the averments
made in the written statement and reiterating the ones made in the plaint.
18. From the pleadings of the parties, following facts emerge:
(i) The plaintiff has been using the following marks and tagline;
Page 15 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Page 16 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
(ii) Whereas, the mark being used by defendants are depicted as
under:
Page 17 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
19. The comparative analysis of the marks, being used by plaintiff
and defendant(s) is provided hereunder:
Page 18 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Page 19 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
20. (i) From the perusal of aforesaid comparative analysis, it is
clearly evident that defendant No.1 has copied the plaintiff's
trademark/artistic work including the colour combination of white
background with attractive red font in it's get up and colour scheme,
background image of atom with floating blue particles and along with the
green border with yellow lines. Further, it is also evident that at the top
and bottom of the packaging material, there are parallel horizontal lines
with green colour background. Both marks are in respect of similar
goods. Further, both the marks have cross elliptical circles and the colour
combination is clearly same.
(ii) It is further evident that defendant No.1 has copied the
plaintiffs' original tagline/slogan/literary work समझदारी एक बार कपड़े की
सुरक्षा लगातार/ SAMJHDARI EK BAR KAPDO KI SURAKHA LAGATAR
in its impugned product.
21. It is admitted position on record that plaintiff has trademark
registration in his name in respect of TIRANGA under Class 3 goods with
user since the year 2010.
22. It is further admitted position on record that on 22.07.2024,
the plaintiff had applied for trademark TIRANGA WITH LABEL
(page 131 of the documents filed by plaintiff), which has so far
Page 20 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
not been objected by any of the party, however, the same was abandoned
by the plaintiff and the order of the Trade Mark Registry in this regard is
re-produced hereunder:
__________________________________________
xxxxx
Trade Marks Act, 1999
In the matter of Application No.2412809 in Class 3
In the name of Vijay Kumar Gupta
ORDER
The above mentioned application was
examined and the examination report mentioned
therein the objection(s) to acceptance of the
application for registration of the trademark was
posted on the official website and was also sent on
07.05.2015 to the applicant/applicant’s authorized
agent. The response to the examination report was
required to be submitted on behalf of the applicant
within one month from the date of receipt of the
examination report.
It was clearly mentioned in the examination
report that if no reply is received or a request for a
hearing is applied for within the above mentioned
stipulated time, the said application shall be treated
to have been abandoned for lack of prosecution
under Section 132 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and
thereafter the status of the application in the
computer database shall reflect the factual position.
However, no response to the examination report has
been received so far either mentioning the
applicant’s comments on the office objections or
requesting for hearing.
Page 21 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
The above mentioned application is, therefore,
deemed to have been abandoned under Rule 38(5) of
the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 and the status of the
application is changed accordingly in the records of
the Trade Marks Registry.
Dated: 29.03.2016 For Registrar of Trade
Marks
xxxxx
—————————————————————
23. (i) On the other hand, defendant No.1 on 11.05.2024 had applied
for the registration of trademark SANTRIJI KA TIRANGA (TM
Application No.6428003) with following pictorial representation:
(ii) This copy of the Trade Mark application has been duly placed
on record by the plaintiff, which has not been disputed by the defendant.
Subsequently, if the mark being used by the defendant is compared to the
one which was applied for by the defendant, then it would be evident that
the defendant has not stuck to the mark applied for and instead has copied
the substantial features of the mark of plaintiff.
24. Now, let us examine as to what registration the defendants
have in their favour. Defendant No.1 had applied for registration of
trademark “SANTARI WASHING POWDER” in Class 3 with Trade Mark
Page 22 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Registry on 13.01.2026 (TM Application No.3158496), with following
pictorial representation:
”
25. The aforesaid registration of defendant No.1 does not mention
the mark TIRANGA or TORANGA therein. The learned counsel for the
plaintiff has no objection in case the defendants use their assigned
trademark.
26. From the Trade Mark Application of defendant No.1, it is
submitted that at the time of grant of trademark registration in the name of
“SANTARI WASHING POWDER”, the user was claimed since
10.04.2015. Now, let us examine the user of mark TIRANGA by the
plaintiff. The invoices in this regard are from page Nos.178 to 371 of the
documents filed by plaintiff, which clearly show the use of mark
TIRANGA in respect of washing powder by the plaintiff from the year
2010 till date.
27. (i) A perusal of the pictures/screen shots of all the advertisements
of the plaintiff on e-commerce sites have been placed on record from page
Nos.140 to 163 of the documents filed by plaintiff. This clearly shows
Page 23 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
that plaintiff has been incurring a lot of money on advertisement of its
products.
(ii) The plaintiff has also placed on record the details of his year
wise turnover.
28. Now, let us examine as to what kind of admission/denial of
documents has been done by the defendant(s), bearing in mind the fact that
defendants have not filed their own documents. Most astonishingly, the
defendants have denied all the documents filed by the plaintiff without
giving specific reason of denial thereof in so much so that in their zeal to
deny those documents, the defendants have even denied their own
application filed for obtaining their trademark, their representation before
the Trade Mark Registry and comparative analysis of the marks.
29. Order VIII Rules 3A and 5 CPC clearly provides for specific
admission and denial of the pleadings in the plaint. A general or evasive
denial is not treated as sufficient. Proviso to Order VIII Rule 5 CPC
provides that even the admitted facts may not be treated to be admitted,
still in its discretion the Court may require those facts to be proved. This is
an exception to the general rule. General rule is that the facts admitted, are
not required to be proved. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case
reported as, “RFA (OS) No.17/2007”, titled as, “Vijaya Myne V/s Satya
Bhushan Kaura” (DOD: 25.05.2007) has been pleased to lay down as
under:
Page 24 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026xxxxx
12. ……. In the process, the Court is also required
to ignore vague, evasive and unspecific denials as
well as inconsistent pleas taken in the written
statement and replies. Even a contrary stand taken
while arguing the matter would be required to be
ignored.
xxxxx
30. The learned counsel for the defendants has very vehemently
argued that the trademarks TORANGA and impugned Trademark
“SANTARI JI KA TIRANGA” are not phonetically similar. I do not find
any substance in this argument of learned counsel for the defendant(s) for
the simple reason that it is not phonetic similarity alone which is to be
considered for comparing the marks. A comparative analysis of the
marks have already been made in preceding paragraph No.19 which
clearly shows the imitation of the mark of the plaintiff by the defendants.
31. The learned counsel for the defendants has not argued on the
issue of territorial jurisdiction. Recently, the Division Bench of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in case reported as, “FAO (OS) (Comm.)
No.66/2025”, titled as, “M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s
Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd.” (DOD: 03.12.2025), while deliberating
upon the aspect of territorial jurisdiction of Courts dealing in trademark
cases has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
17. Whether the impugned judgment is correct in
holding that the registration of the asserted trade
marks of the appellant in Delhi would not conferPage 25 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
jurisdiction on this Court.
17.1 The learned Single Judge has ruled against
the appellant, on this issue, relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhodha
House.
17.2 We are unable to sustain this finding.
17.3 The Supreme Court, in Dhodha House,
decided two appeals, i.e., Civil Appeal
No.6248/1997 (Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi)
and Civil Appeal No.16/1999 (Patel Field
Marshal Industries and Ors. v. P.M. Diesel Ltd.).
Of these, the decision in Civil Appeal
No.6248/1997 is not of relevance for our
purpose.
17.4 In paras 17 and 18 of the impugned
judgment, the learned Single Judge has placed
reliance on the exposition of law, in Dhodha
House, to the effect that the cause of action, to
institute an infringement suit, arises only where
when a registered trademark is used and not
“when the application is filed for registration of a
trademark.” In thus paraphrasing the ratio
decidendi of Dhodha House, the learned Single
Judge is correct.
17.5 Where the learned Single Judge has erred,
in our opinion, is in his failing to note that the
appellant was not invoking the jurisdiction of
this Court because its application for registration
of the asserted marks, was filed within the
jurisdiction of this Court, but because the
asserted marks were registered within such
jurisdiction.
Page 26 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
17.6 Dhodha House holds, unexceptionably, that
a mere filing of an application for registration
does not give rise to a cause of action for
infringement. The registration of a trademark, on
the other hand, unquestionably does. This is
apparent from Section 28(1)18 of the Trade
Marks Act which confers, on the proprietor of a
validly registered trademark, both the right to
exclusively use the said trademark as well as for
remedies against infringement of the mark.
Infringement, throughout Section 29 of the Trade
Marks Act, presupposes registration of the
infringed trade mark, as each sub-section of
Section 29 commences with the words “A
registered trade mark is infringed …”
17.7 There can, therefore, be no infringement of
an unregistered trade mark. The very first
criterion to be satisfied for a case of infringement
to sustain is that the infringed mark is registered.
The expression “cause of action” is defined,
classically, as the bundle of facts which the
plaintiff would have to prove to succeed in the
action. Alternatively, it is defined as “every fact
which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the
plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a
judgement of the court”. Kusum Ingots & Alloys
Ltd v. Union of India comprehensively defined
the expression “cause of action”, thus:
“6.Cause of action implies a right to sue.
The material facts which are imperative for
the suitor to allege and prove constitute the
cause of action. Cause of action is not
defined in any statute. It has, however,
been judicially interpreted inter alia toPage 27 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026mean that every fact which would be
necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if
traversed, in order to support his right to
the judgment of the Court. Negatively put,
it would mean that everything which, if not
proved, gives the defendant an immediate
right to judgment, would be part of cause
of action. Its importance is beyond any
doubt. For every action, there has to be a
cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ
petition, as the case may be, shall be
rejected summarily.”
Viewed thus, it is obvious that the registration of
the asserted mark is an indispensable part of the
right to sue for infringement, and to succeed in
the suit. If the defendant traverses the assertion
of the plaintiff that the mark is registered, the
plaintiff would have to prove the fact. The
registration of the asserted mark is, therefore, in
a way the sine qua non for maintaining an
infringement action.
17.8 Among the remedies available against
infringement, of a registered trademark is,
moreover, the remedy of injunction, as per
Section 135(1)22 of the Trade Marks Act. The
mere registration of a trademark, therefore,
confers, on the proprietor of the registered
trademark, the right to obtain an injunction,
where the trademark is infringed. The
registration of the trademark, therefore,
unquestionably constitutes not just a part, but an
indispensable part of the cause of action for an
infringement suit.
17.9 The learned Single Judge, in holding that
Page 28 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
the registration of the asserted trademarks of the
appellant in Delhi did not constitute part of the
cause of action to institute the suit has, therefore,
ruled contrary to Section 28(1) of the Trade
Marks Act.
17.10 Dhodha House does not exposit any such
proposition. What it holds is that territorial
jurisdiction cannot be vested in a Court merely
because the advertisement of the application filed
by the plaintiff seeking registration of the
asserted marks was within such jurisdiction. In
this context, it is relevant to extract paras 30 and
31 of the decision in Dhodha House, thus:
“30. The said decision has no application in
the instant case for more than one reason.
For the purpose of registration of a trade
mark, an application must be filed in the
branch office of the Registrar of Trade
Marks. It is not in dispute that under
Section 5(3) of the 1958 Act, the Central
Government has issued a notification in the
Official Gazette defining the territorial
limits within which an office of the Trade
Marks Registry may exercise its functions.
The office of the Trade Marks Registry at
New Delhi exercises jurisdiction over the
States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan
and Uttar Pradesh and the Union Territory
of Chandigarh and the National Capital
Territory of Delhi. Whereas in Dhodha
House v. S.K. Maingi no such application
has been filed, admittedly in Patel Field
Marshal Industries v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. the
Delhi office has no jurisdiction as partiesPage 29 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026are residents of Rajkot and an application
was filed by the appellant for registration
of its trade mark at Bombay. If an objection
is to be filed, the same has to be filed at
Bombay. An advertisement by itself in a
journal or a paper would not confer
jurisdiction upon a court, as would be
evident from the following observations of
this Court in Oil and Natural Gas
Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu:
“Therefore, broadly speaking,
NICCO claims that a part of the
cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the Calcutta High
Court because it became aware of the
advertisement in Calcutta, it
submitted its bid or tender from
Calcutta and made representations
demanding justice from Calcutta on
learning about the rejection of its
offer. The advertisement itself
mentioned that the tenders should be
submitted to EIL at New Delhi; that
those would be scrutinised at New
Delhi and that a final decision
whether or not to award the contract
to the tenderer would be taken at
New Delhi. Of course, the execution
of the contract work was to be carried
out at Hazira in Gujarat. Therefore,
merely because it read the
advertisement at Calcutta and
submitted the offer from Calcutta and
made representations from Calcutta
would not, in our opinion, constitute
facts forming an integral part of thePage 30 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026cause of action. So also the mere fact
that it sent fax messages from
Calcutta and received a reply thereto
at Calcutta would not constitute an
integral part of the cause of action.”
31. A cause of action will arise only when
a registered trade mark is used and not
when an application is filed for registration
of the trade mark. In a given case, an
application for grant of registration
certificate may or may not be allowed. The
person in whose favour a registration
certificate has already been granted (sic)
indisputably will have an opportunity to
oppose the same by filing an application
before the Registrar, who has the requisite
jurisdiction to determine the said question.
In other words, a suit may lie where an
infringement of trade mark or copyright
takes place but a cause of action for filing
the suit would not arise within the
jurisdiction of the court only because an
advertisement has been issued in the Trade
Marks Journal or any other journal,
notifying the factum of filing of such an
application.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17.11 Thus, even in Dhodha House, the
application for registration of the trademark was
filed at Bombay. The advertisement, advertising
the filing of the application, was, inter alia,
issued in Delhi. It was on the ground that the
advertisement of the application was also issued
in Delhi that the jurisdiction of this Court was
sought to be invoked. The Supreme Court held
Page 31 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
that the mere fact that the advertisement of the
filing of the application for registration of the
mark, was also issued in Delhi, when the
application itself was filed in Bombay, could not
confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the
suit.
17.12 The appellant, in the present case, never
sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on
the ground that the application for registration of
the asserted trade marks was advertised within
the jurisdiction of this Court, but that the
registrations were granted by the Trade Mark
Office at Delhi.
17.13 The Supreme Court has clearly held, in
para 31 of Dhodha House, that the suit would lie
where infringement of the trademark
takes place. Infringement of trademark, per
definition, is dependent on the registration of the
mark. Thus, in para 31, the decision in Dhodha
House in fact emphasizes the jurisdiction of the
Court where the asserted mark is registered to
entertain an infringement action. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the fact that the
marks asserted by the appellant in the present
case were registered within the jurisdiction of
this Court was by itself a factor which entitled
the appellants to institute the suit before this
Court. The learned Single Judge, in our
considered opinion, is not correct in having held
otherwise.
18. Whether the Marketing Agreement formed
part of the cause of action for instituting the suit
and, therefore, whether the suit was amenable to
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
Page 32 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
18.1 The finding, of the learned Single Judge,
that the Marketing Agreement dated 1 January
2022 executed between the appellant and the
respondent did not form part of cause of action in
the suit is, to our mind, clearly fallacious. The
learned Single Judge has extensively relied, in
arriving at this finding, on the fact that the
appellant had moved IA 20138/2022 under Order
II Rule 2 of the CPC, seeking leave to separately
sue the respondent for breach of the Marketing
Agreement and that leave, as sought, had been
granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court
by order dated 12 July 2023. The learned Single
Judge has also relied on the fact that, in paras 49
and 50 of the plaint, which dealt with cause of
action and jurisdiction, there is no reference to
the Marketing Agreement.
18.2 We are not able to concur with the learned
Single Judge on any of these findings.
18.3 Firstly, a bare reading of the plaint makes it
clear that the plaintiff had asserted, at more
points than one, that the manner of use, by the
respondent, of the infringing marks, was in
breach of the Marketing Agreement executed
between the appellant and the respondent. Inter
alia, these assertions are to be found in paras 28
to 30 of the plaint, which already stand
reproduced in para 3.2(viii) supra.
18.4 Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, in its
various sub-sections, defines “infringement”.
Each sub-section commences with the words, “A
registered trade mark is infringed by a person
who, not being a registered proprietor or a person
Page 33 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
using by way of permitted use …” Ergo,
infringement has necessarily to be by a person
who has no authority to use the allegedly
infringing mark either as its registered proprietor
or by way of permitted user. A person who uses
the mark as a permitted user cannot, therefore, be
an infringer of the mark.
18.5 It is for this reason that the appellant has
specifically asserted, in the plaint, that the user of
the infringing mark by the respondent was in
breach of the Marketing Agreement and the
extent to which the respondent had been
permitted to use the appellant’s mark thereunder.
User of the appellant’s mark in breach of the
Marketing Agreement was, therefore, specifically
alleged in the plaint, to buttress the assertion that
the respondent was not using the infringing mark
as a permitted user within the meaning of Section
29 of the Trade Marks Act.
18.6 The learned Single Judge has failed to take
stock of these assertions in the plaint, which
more than amply demonstrate that the Marketing
Agreement, and its covenants, constitute an
essential part of the cause of action on which the
plaint is based.
18.7 Once the Marketing Agreement and its
covenants constitute a part of the cause of action
on which the plaint is based, courts having
jurisdiction over the place of execution of the
Marketing Agreement would ipso facto have
jurisdiction to adjudicate on the suit. On the
aspect of cause of action founded on breach of a
contract, the Supreme Court has held, in A.B.C.
Laminart (P) Ltd v. A.P. Agencies, thus:
Page 34 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026“15. In the matter of a contract there may
arise causes of action of various kinds. In a
suit for damages for breach of contract the
cause of action consists of the making of
the contract, and of its breach, so that the
suit may be filed either at the place where
the contract was made or at the place where
it should have been performed and the
breach occurred. The making of the
contract is part of the cause of action. A
suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at
the place where it was made. The
determination of the place where the
contract was made is part of the law of
contract.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In a similar vein, Prakash Kaur v. K.G. Ringshia
holds that “in cases where cause of action consist
of breach of contract, a suit can be filed at the
place where contract is made or to be performed
and also where breach occurs.”
18.8 As the plaint of the appellant was premised
on the ground that the use, by the respondent, of
the allegedly infringing marks breached the
Marketing Agreement between them, the
Marketing Agreement constituted part of the
cause of action on which the suit was based and,
therefore, this Court, being the Court within
whose jurisdiction the Marketing Agreement was
admittedly executed, would be possessed of
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and
adjudicate on the lis.
19. Re. availability of the respondent’s products
on e-commerce websites
Page 35 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
19.1 One of the grounds on which the appellant
asserted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction
in the matter, was that the respondent’s products
are available on e-commerce websites, which can
be accessed in Delhi. The learned Single Judge
has observed that there are only two e-commerce
websites to which specific allusion is to be found
in the plaint, which are IndiaMart and Kalgudi.
19.2 The impugned judgment holds that
availability of the respondent’s marks on the
IndiaMart and Kalgudi websites could not confer
jurisdiction on this Court, as the listings of the
products on the IndiaMart and Kalgudi websites
was not at the instance of the respondent, but at
the instance of some third parties.
19.3 The learned Single Judge has also relied on
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in Banyan Tree Holding to hold that as there was
no evidence of any orders having been placed on
IndiaMart or Kalgudi for purchasing the
allegedly infringing products of the respondent,
the listing of the said products on the said
platforms could not constitute a basis for this
Court to exercise jurisdiction.
19.4 The decision in Banyan Tree Holding
19.4.1 Banyan Tree Holding25 , the plaintiff
before the Division Bench of this Court in the
said case, sued the defendants for having used
the mark “BANYAN TREE RETREAT” with a
device of a Banyan Tree which, according to
BTH, infringed its registered trademark. The
Division Bench notes, in para 5 of its judgment,
Page 36 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
the recital, in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this Court on the aspect of territorial
jurisdiction, as pleaded by BTH, thus:
“5. The learned single Judge has, in the
referral order dated 11.8.2008, noticed that
the plaintiff has in para 30 of the plaint
claimed that this Court has the territorial
jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to entertain
the suit. According to the Plaintiff the
Defendants solicit business through use of
the impugned mark “BANYAN TREE
RETREAT” and the Banyan device in
Delhi. It is stated that “the Defendants have
presence in Delhi through their website
http://www.makprojects.com/banyantree.ht
m which is accessible in Delhi.” It is
further contended that “the said website is
not a passive website. It not only provides
contact information but also seeks
feedback and inputs from its customers
through an interactive web-page.” Further,
the Plaintiff submits that the services of the
Defendants are being offered to the
customers in Delhi “also because of the
ubiquity, universality and utility of the
features of the Internet and the World Wide
Web and hence the cause of action has
arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.”
19.4.2 The Division Bench formulated three
questions as arising before it for consideration, of
which the first two are relevant, and may be
reproduced thus:
Page 37 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026“(i) For the purposes of a passing off
action, or an infringement action where the
Plaintiff is not carrying on business within
the jurisdiction of a court, in what
circumstances can it be said that the
hosting of a universally accessible website
by the Defendants lends jurisdiction to
such Court where such suit is filed (“the
forum court”)?
(ii) In a passing off or infringement action,
where the defendant is sought to be sued on
the basis that its website is accessible in the
forum state, what is the extent of the
burden on the Plaintiff to prima facie
establish that the forum court has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit?”
19.4.3 The Division Bench observed, at the
outset of its discussion, that the suit before it was
not one for infringement, but for passing off. It
observed that, if the suit was one for
infringement, this Court would in any event have
territorial jurisdiction in the matter, in view of
Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as BTH
was carrying on business within the jurisdiction
of this Court. In a case of passing off, however,
Section 134 would not be applicable and
jurisdiction would have to vest in the Court in
terms of Section 20 of the CPC.
19.4.4 The defendants before this Court were
situated at Hyderabad. As such, Section 20(a)
would not apply. BTH sought to invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of Section
20(c) of the CPC, contending that, as the
defendants had an interactive website whichPage 38 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026could be accessed within the jurisdiction of this
Court, this Court had jurisdiction in the matter.
19.4.5 The Division Bench of this Court
embarked on an exhaustive analysis of the entire
law relating to territorial jurisdiction in the case
of e-commerce, in this country as well as across
the globe. Following the said analysis, questions
(i) and (ii) as framed by it were answered thus,
by the Division Bench:
“42. This Court holds that jurisdiction of
the forum court does not get attracted
merely on the basis of interactivity of the
website which is accessible in the forum
state. The degree of the interactivity apart,
the nature of the activity permissible and
whether it results in a commercial
transaction has to be examined. For the
‘effects’ test to apply, the Plaintiff must
necessarily plead and show prima facie that
the specific targeting of the forum state by
the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm
to the Plaintiff within the forum state. For
the purposes of a passing off or an
infringement action (where the plaintiff is
not located within the jurisdiction of the
court), the injurious effect on the Plaintiff’s
business, goodwill or reputation within the
forum state as a result of the Defendant’s
website being accessed in the forum state
would have to be shown. Naturally
therefore, this would require the presence
of the Plaintiff in the forum state and not
merely the possibility of such presence in
the future. Secondly, to show that an
injurious effect has been felt by thePage 39 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Plaintiff it would have to be
shown that viewers in the forum state were
specifically targeted. Therefore the ‘effects’
test would have to be applied in
conjunction with the “sliding scale” test to
determine if the forum court has
jurisdiction to try a suit concerning internet
based disputes.
43. The question no. (i) is accordingly
answered.
Question (ii) : In a passing off or
infringement action, where the
defendant is sought to be sued on the basis
that its website is
accessible in the forum state, what is the
extent of the burden on
the Plaintiff to prima facie establish that
the forum court has
jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
44. This brings us to the question as to
the extent of burden of proof on the
Plaintiff to prima facie show that the
Defendant has purposefully availed of the
jurisdiction of this court. In the present
case, it is argued that by enabling
customers to go on the website and get a
copy of its brochure and make enquiries,
the Defendant must be held to have
purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of
this court. The question that arises is for
the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in such
circumstances, is what is the extent of the
burden on the Plaintiff to show prima facie
that a part of the cause of action arose
Page 40 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
within the jurisdiction of the forum court.
45. This court holds that in order to prima
facie establish that the Defendant
purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of
this court, the Plaintiff would have to show
that the Defendant engaged in some
commercial activity in the forum State by
targeting its website specifically at
customers within that State. This is
consistent with the law laid down in
Cybersell and reiterated later in Toys R Us.
It is also consistent with the application of
the ‘tighter’ version of the ‘effects’ test
which is ‘targeting’. In any action for
passing off or infringement, it would have
to be shown that the Defendant by using its
mark intended to pass off its goods as that
of the Plaintiff’s. A mere hosting of a
website which can be accessible from
anyone from within the jurisdiction of the
court is not sufficient for this purpose. Also
a mere posting of an advertisement by the
Defendant depicting its mark on a passive
website which does not enable the
Defendant to enter into any commercial
transaction with the viewer in the forum
state cannot satisfy the requirement of
giving rise to a cause of action in the forum
state. Even an interactive website, which is
not shown to be specifically targeted at
viewers in the forum state for commercial
transactions, will not result in the court of
the forum state having jurisdiction. In sum,
for the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in
order to show that some part of the cause
of action has arisen in the forum state by
Page 41 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
the use of the internet by the Defendant,
the Plaintiff will have to show prima facie
that the said website, whether
euphemistically termed as “passive plus”
or “interactive” was specifically targeted at
viewers in the forum state for commercial
transactions. The Plaintiff would have to
plead this and produce material to prima
facie show that some commercial
transaction using the website was entered
into by the Defendant with a user of its
website within the forum state and that the
specific targeting of the forum state by the
Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to
the Plaintiff within the forum state.
Question no. (ii) is answered accordingly.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19.4.6 The learned Single Judge is, therefore,
correct in his view that, as per the law declared
in Banyan Tree Holding, the mere existence of
an interactive website of the defendant,
accessible within the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court, would not be sufficient for the suit to
be maintainable here. It would additionally have
to be shown that some commercial transaction
was concluded within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
xxxxx
32. In the end, the learned counsel very bleakly argued that the
invoices placed on record by the plaintiff (i.e from pages 186 to 371)
which are for the period from 2010 to 2014 shows that the plaintiff did not
use his mark TIRANGA during this period. I am of the considered opinion
that this makes no difference whatsoever, particularly in the teeth of the
Page 42 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
fact that plaintiff has admittedly been using the trademark TIRANGA in
respect of his goods even till today and the invoices predicated to be taken
on record today have been duly allowed at the time of allowing of
application filed by plaintiff under Order XIII-A Rule 5 CPC.
33. (i) It is also a matter of fact that it is the same defendant No.1,
who had violated the other trademark of one Shri Sunil Niranjan Shah,
whereby the defendant No.1 had malafidely and deliberately adopted the
identical Trademark/label/trade-dress/packaging/color combination/artistic
work “SANTARI JI KI GAY CHHAP/ / /
/ ” in relation to the said person’s well recognized
trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work
“COW BRAND/GAAY CHAAP/GAAY CHHAP (COW BRAND) along
with Device of GAAY CHHAP/COW BRAND/ / /
” (reference CS Comm.No.525/2024, titled as, Sunil Niranjan
Page 43 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Shah Vs Laxmi Chand Ahuja).
(ii) This prima facie indicates that defendant No.1 is in the habit
of piggy bagging upon the trade marks and goodwill of plaintiff and of
other registered trademark holders.
34. (i) In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is found to have
not only good prima facie case, but impeccable case against the
defendants. It is the plaintiff who is going to suffer irreparable loss as
well as injury if injunction sought for is not granted in his favour. Further,
the balance of convenience is also clearly towards the plaintiff and against
the defendants.
(ii) The application filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1
& 2 CPC is accordingly allowed.
35. It has been very vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
plaintiff that there is no need to record evidence in the matter. In support
of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.1203/2018”, titled as,
“AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & Ors. V/s Gyan Singh & Anr.”
(DOD: 25.04.2023);
(b) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.478/2019”, titled as,
“Sandisk LLC V/s Amit & Ors.” (DOD: 01.03.2023);
(c) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.564/2020”, titled as,
“Imagine Marketing Private Ltd. V/s M/s Green Accessories
Through Its Proprietor & Anr.” (DOD: 21.03.2022);
(d) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.675/2019”, titled as,
“Dhani Loans And Services Limited & Anr. V/s
Page 44 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
WWW.Dhanifinance.Com & Ors.” (DOD: 12.10.2022);
(e) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.929/2018”, titled as,
“Sanofi & Anr. V/s Faisal Mushtaq & Ors.” (DOD: 16.11.2018);
(f) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.413/2021”, titled as, “LT
Foods Limited V/s Saraswati Trading Company” (DOD:
11.11.2022);
(g) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.1219/2018”, titled as,
“Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/s Parul Food Products V/s
M/s Gurudev Industries” (DOD: 20.12.2018);
(h) Case reported as, “CS (OS) No.3466/2012”, titled as,
“Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. V/s Balraj Muttneja & Ors.”
(DOD: 20.02.2014); and
(i) Case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.564/2020” titled as,
“Imagine Marketing Private Limited V/s M/s Green Accessories
Through: Its Proprietor & Anr.” (DOD: 21.03.2022).
36. The judgment in case of LT Foods (supra) and Shri Ved
Prakash Garg (supra) has been referred to establish the point that the report
of Local Commissioner in itself can be treated as evidence.
37. The learned counsel has further very vehemently argued that
in the teeth of material available on record in the form of plaint, documents
and the report of leaned Local Commissioner, no useful purpose would be
served asking the plaintiff to lead evidence with regard to the grant of
prayer qua damages and cost.
Page 45 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
38. In case reported as, “AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO” (supra), the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
10. At the hearing on 19thApril, 2023, the counsels
for the defendants on instructions submitted that the
defendants were agreeable to a decree of permanent
injunction being passed against the defendants.
Counsel for the plaintiffs also pressed for costs and
damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to be apportioned between
the defendants.
xxxxx
xxxxx
17. I am of the opinion that no purpose would be
served by directing the plaintiffs to lead evidence by
filing examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. The
defendants have no reasonable prospect of succeeding
in the present suit. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a
fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order
XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial
disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of the
IPD Rules, deserves to be passed in favour of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants.
xxxxx
39. The Hon’ ble High Court, thereafter in paragraphs No.22 and
23 of the aforesaid judgment has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
22. Clearly, the customers are being misled by the
defendants and the entire effort is deliberate and
dishonest. This amounts to dilution of the reputation
and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ marks and causing loss
to the plaintiffs in business and reputation. The
members of the public are bound to confuse bicycles
manufactured and sold by the defendants under thePage 46 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
mark VOLVO as emanating from the plaintiffs. The
defendants have been making unlawful gains at the
expense of the plaintiffs. I am convinced that this is
nota case of innocent adoption by the defendants. The
Court cannot ignore such flagrant misuse of the
plaintiffs’ marks by the defendants. Even though the
claim of the plaintiffs for damages, based on the
recoveries made at the premises of the defendant no.2
and the invoices placed on record, is close to
Rs.20,00,000/-, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/-towards damages and costs to the
plaintiffs.
23. Taking into account that the defendants no. 3 and
4 are the manufacturers and suppliers of the aforesaid
goods and the defendants no.1and 2 were selling the
goods supplied by the defendants no.3 and 4, out of the
aforesaid amount, the defendants no.3 and 4 shall be
liable to pay Rs.6,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs
and the defendants no.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay
Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs.
xxxxx
40. The other judgment(s) sought to be relied upon by learned
counsel for the plaintiff also lays down the same law.
41. Amended Order XIII-A of CPC, as applicable to commercial
disputes, enables the Court to decide a claim or part thereof without
recording oral evidence. Order XIII-A of CPC seeks to avoid the long
drawn process of leading oral evidence in certain eventualities.
Consequently, the said provision enables disposal of commercial disputes
in a time bound manner and promotes the object of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015.
Page 47 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
42. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of CPC empowers the Court to grant a
summary judgment against a defendant where on an application filed in
that regard, the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospect of
successfully defending a claim and there is no other compelling reason as
to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence. Order XIIIA (3) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes,
is reproduced herein below:-
xxxxx
“3. Grounds for summary judgment.–The Court may
give a summary judgment against a plaintiff or
defendant on a claim if it considers that-
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on
the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of
successfully defending the claim, as the case may be;
and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim
should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence.”
xxxxx
43. The defendants cannot be allowed to piggy bag upon the
reputation of plaintiff. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a case
involving somewhat similar facts, i.e in case reported as, “1992 SCC
Online Del 122”, titled as, “The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. V/s
Mahavir Steels & Ors.” (DOD: 25.02.1992), has been pleased to hold as
under:
xxxxx
14. ………An imitation remains an imitation
whether it is done by one or by many. It acquires no
legitimacy. A wrong is not righted by the following it
musters. Infringement of trade mark by a trader
cannot be justified on the ground that there are othersPage 48 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
like him who are doing the same. There is a growing
tendency to copy the trade marks to cash upon some
one else’s business reputation . The pirates of trade
marks are like parasites clinging to others for their
growth. Imitators of trade marks have the sole object
of diverting the business of others. This tendency
must be curbed in the interest of the trade and the
consumers.
xxxxx
44. Further in case reported as, “CS (Comm.) No.126/2022”,
titled as, “M.L Brother LLP V/s Mahesh Kumar Bhuralal Tanna” (DOD:
12.05.2022), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay
down that Local Commissioner’s report can be read in evidence in terms of
Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC. For ready reference, the said observations
are re-produced as under:
xxxxx
10. Order 26 Rule 10 (2) CPC stipulates that the
report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken
by the Commissioner shall be evidence in the suit
and shall form part of the record. The said provision
reads as under:
10. Procedure of Commissioner.– (1) The
Commissioner, after such local inspection as
he deems necessary and after reducing to
writing the evidence taken by him, shall
return such evidence, together with his report
in writing signed by him, to the Court.
(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in
suit. Commissioner may be examined in
person.–The report of the Commissioner and
the evidence taken by him (but not the
evidence without the report) shall be evidence
in the suit and shall form part of the record;
Page 49 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
but the Court or, with the permission of the
Court, any of the parties to the suit may
examine the Commissioner personally in open
Court touching any of the matters referred to
him or mentioned in his report, or as to his
report, or as to the manner in which he has
made the investigation.”
11. In Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal 2018
IAD (Delhi) 622, this Court examined the said
provision and held that once the Commissioner has
filed the evidence along with his report, it becomes
evidence in the suit itself. Under Order 26 Rule
10(2) CPC it is not mandatory to examine the
Commissioner to admit the report of the
Commissioner as evidence in the suit. The relevant
observations are as under:
8. The Local Commissioner is in fact a
representative of the Court itself and it is for
this reason that Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC
clearly provides that once the Commissioner
has filed the evidence along with his report
the same shall be treated as evidence in the
suit and shall form part of the record.
xxx xxx xxxx
10. The rationale behind Order 26 Rule 10
(2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is
appointed as a representative of the Court
and evidence collected by the Commissioner
along with the report of the Commissioner
would be evidence in the suit, subject to any
objection raised by any party. If any party
has any objection to Commissioner’s report
or to the evidence, such party has an option
to examine the Commissioner personally inPage 50 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
open Court. Such examination is however,
neither compulsory nor required especially in
cases where the party does not challenge the
report. In the present case, a perusal of the
written statement filed by the Defendant
clearly reveals that the Defendant does not
challenge the Commissioner’s report. Para of
the written statement is set out below…”
12. This position of law has been reiterated by this
Court in Vinod Goel v. Mahesh Yadav [RFA
598/2016 decided on 23rd May, 2018] wherein the
Court observed as under:
“7. It is the settled proposition in law that
when a Commissioner is appointed, he acts as
the officer of the Court and it is not necessary
for the Commissioner to be examined. This is
clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in
Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors.
v. A.S. Shaik Fathimal & Ors., 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 600, wherein the Court held as under:
“It is now settled law that the report of the
Commissioner is part of the record and that
therefore the report cannot be overlooked or
rejected on spacious plea of non-examination
of the Commissioner as a witness since it is
part of the record of the case.”
8. Even this Court, recently in Levis Strauss v.
Rajesh Agarwal [RFA 127/2007 decision
dated 3rd January, 2018], held as under
“11. The rationale behind Order 26 Rule 10
(2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is
appointed as a representative of the Court and
evidence collected by the CommissionerPage 51 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
alongwith the report of the Commissioner
would be evidence in the suit, subject to any
objection raised by any party. If any party has
any objection to Commissioner’s report or to
the evidence, such party has an option to
examine the Commissioner personally in open
Court. Such examination is however, neither
compulsory nor required especially in cases
where the party does not challenge the
report.”
9. Mr. Prag Chawla clearly concedes that there may
be no requirement to examine the Local
Commissioner once the Commissioner is appointed
by a Court.
10. Under these circumstances, since the
Commissioner had visited the suit property and had
submitted the report, it is deemed appropriate that
the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to
decide the matter afresh after taking into
consideration the report of the Local Commissioner,
Mr. Y.D. Nagar dated 5th January, 2000 in Suit
No.2198/1999.
13. In view of Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC and the
judgments discussed above, the settled legal position
that emerges is that the report of the Local
Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit
where it is not challenged by any party. Accordingly,
in the present case the report of the Local
Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied
upon by the Court as evidence as the same is
unchallenged.
xxxxx
(underlining which is mine emphasized)
Page 52 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
45. There is no opposition on the part of defendants to the report
of learned Local Commissioner filed in the matter.
46. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case in
totality, I am of the considered opinion that there is no real prospect of
defendants succeeding in proving their defence. Thus, no useful purpose
would be served by allowing the proceedings to meander mindlessly in
Court and to clog the justice delivery system. Therefore, in my opinion,
present is a fit case where the Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-
A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, deserves to be passed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Reference in this
regard may be made to the judgment in case reported as, “2019 SCC
OnLine Del 10764”, titled as, “Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. V/s Kunwer
Sachdev”, wherein the Hon’ ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to
observe as under:
xxxxx
“90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the
summary judgment procedure in the Commercial
Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial
disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the
applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial
disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the
default procedure/norm.
91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to
commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a
summary judgment against the defendant where the
Court considers that the defendant has no real
prospects of successfully defending the claim and
there is no other compelling reason why the claimPage 53 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence. The expression “real” directs the Court to
examine whether there is a “realistic” as opposed to
“fanciful” prospects of success. This Court is of the
view that the expression “no genuine issue requiring
a trial” in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and “no
other compelling reason…..for trial” in Commercial
Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis.
Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted
if the Court, while hearing such an application, can
make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to
the facts and the same is a proportionate, more
expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a
fair and just result.
92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need
not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are
disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian
Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the
event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the
defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully
defending the claim.”
xxxxx
47. (i) Considering the present case on the touchstone of the law laid
down in the above referred judgments, I find that no useful purpose would
be served, firstly by framing the issue with regard to grant of damages &
cost and then asking the plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter. I am
further of the considered opinion that there is no defence available on
record on part of defendants which debars the plaintiff from claiming
decree in the matter, as there is no real prospect of defendant successfully
contesting their claim.
(ii) Further, while going through the report of learned Local
Page 54 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
Commissioner, it is evident that approximately 118 gunny bags (stitched &
sealed) of infringing goods (valuing total approx Rs.1,50,000/-) were
recovered from the premises of defendant No.1; whereas, defendant No.2
did not allow/co-operate with the learned Local Commissioner for
execution of commission at his premises.
(iii) Be that as it may, taking into account the documents relied
upon by the plaintiff, it is observed that plaintiff has a good case and no
useful purpose would be served by going to trial in the matter. I order
accordingly.
48. As regards the damages claimed for by the plaintiff, it is noted
that The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules,
2022 provide guidance on the manner in which the damages could be
calculated in such cases. Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 is set out below:
xxxxx
“20. Damages/Account of profits:A party seeking
damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable
estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational
facts/account statements in respect thereof along with
any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties
to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall
consider the following factors while determining the
quantum of damages:
(i) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;
(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;
(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may
have earned through royalties/license fees, had the use of
the subject IPR been duly authorized;
(iv) The duration of the infringement;
(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the
infringement;
Page 55 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the
damages being incurred by the injured party; In the
computation of damages, the Court may take the
assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31 of
these Rules.
xxxxx
49. Further, on the aspect of damages, in case reported as,
“2019:DHC:2185”, tilted as, “Koninlijke Philips and Ors. V/s Amazestore
& Ors.”, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down
certain standards for grant of damages in following terms:
xxxxx
“41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the
view that the rule of thumb that should be followed
while granting damages can be summarized in a chart
as under:–
# Degree of malafide conduct Proportionate award
(i) First time innocent infringer Injunction
(ii) First-time knowing infringer Injunction + partial costs
(iii) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs + partial
causes minor impact to the plaintiff damages
(iv) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs+
causes major impact to the plaintiff compensatory damages
(v) Infringement which was deliberate Injunction + Costs +
and calculated Aggravated damages
(gangster/scam/mafia) + wilfful (compensatory + additional
contempt of Court damages)
42. It is clarified that the above chart is illustrative and
is not to be read as a statutory provision. The Courts
are free to deviate from the same for good reason.”
xxxxx
Page 56 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
50. Taking a holistic view of the matter vis-a-vis provisions as
laid down under Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 and applying the ratio of
law laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of “Koninlijke
Philips” (supra), I am of the considered opinion that grant of damages @
Rs.3,75,000/- to the plaintiff would meet the ends of justice. I order
accordingly.
51. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i) A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour
of plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants by
themselves as also through their individual proprietor/partners,
agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors,
stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf are hereby
restrained from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying,
advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the
impugned trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour
combination/ artistic work “SANTRIJI KA TIRANGA // ” or any other trade mark/label which
may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’
said trade mark/label/trade dress/packaging/colourPage 57 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
combination/artistic work”TIRANGA/ / TORANGA
” along with tagline/slogan/literary work समझदारी एक बार
कपड़े की सुरक्षा लगातार/ SAMJHDARI EK BAR KAPDO KI
SURAKHA LAGATAR and other formative marks in relation to
their impugned goods and business of washing powder, detergent
powder, detergent cake, soap etc., and other allied and cognate or
from doing any other acts or deeds, thereby infringing plaintiff’s
registered trademarks, copyright and passing off their products as
that of plaintiff;
(ii) A decree in the sum of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Seventy Five Thousand Only) on account of damages sustained by
the plaintiff due to loss of sale, reputation and goodwill as well as
dilution of plaintiff’s trademark is passed in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendants jointly and severally;
(iii) Plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the proceedings, which will
include actual cost incurred by the plaintiff, cost incurred towards
execution of Local Commission as also the counsel’s fee which is
quantified as Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only);
Page 58 of 59
CS (Comm.) No.568/2024: Vijay Kumar Gupta, Trading As M/s Balaji International & Anr.
V/s Laxmi Chand Ahuja, Trading As M/s S.B Chemicals & Anr.: DOD: 24.02.2026
52. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
53. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of
necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
by VINOD
VINOD YADAV
YADAV Date:
2026.02.24
17:11:00 +0530
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 24.02.2026 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts
Page 59 of 59
