Delhi District Court
Sanjha Chulha Through Authorized … vs Sanjha Chulha on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-07), DIGITAL
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM) 467/2022
M/s SANJHA CHULHA
Having Shop At:
A-31, Shop No. 17-22,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
(Through Its Partners)
Mr. Nand Kishore
Son Of Late Shri Jiya Lal
Having Address At:
A-31, Shop No. 17-22,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
Mr. Suresh Kumar
Son Of Late Shri Jiya Lal
Having Address At:
A-31, Shop No. 17-22
Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. M/s SANJHA CHULHA
Having Address At:
Shop no. 12 & 16, Sector 19, Part-2 Market,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002
Also at:
Shop no. 55, HUDA Market,
Sector 46, Faridabad, Haryana-121001
Defendant no. 1
2. Mr. Inder Sood
Partner at:
M/s SANJHA CHULHA Having Address At:
Shop no. 12 & 16, Sector 19, Part-2 Market,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
Also at:
Shop no. 55, HUDA Market, Sector 46,
Digitally
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Page 1 of 51
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:41:58
+0530
Faridabad, Haryana-121001.
Defendant no. 2
3. Mr. Girish Sud
Partner at:
M/s SANJHA CHULHA
Having Address At:
Shop no. 12 & 16, Sector 19,
Part-2 Market, Faridabad,
Haryana-121002
Also at:
Shop no. 55, HUDA Market,
Sector 46, Faridabad,
Haryana-121001
Defendant no. 3
4. Swiggy India
Bundl Technologies Private Limited
58/3, First Floor, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
Defendant no. 4
5. Zomato Media Pvt. Ltd.
Ground Floor 12A, 94
Meghdoot, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
Defendant no. 5
6. Just Dial Limited
Plot Number A-39, 40, Noida
Sector 16, Uttar Pradesh - 201301
Defendant no. 6
Date of Institution: 18.05.2022
Arguments concluded on : 12.01.2026
Date of Judgment: 11.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the rival contentions
concentrated around the trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ (in device
and label). Plaintiff, a partnership firm, having its place of
business at A-31, Shop No. 17-22, Kailash Colony, New Delhi,
through partners Sh. Nand Kishore and Sh. Suresh Kumar, have
Digitally
signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 2 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:42:03
+0530
insisted for relief of permanent injunction, delivery up and
damages, alleging infringement and passing-off of the trademark
‘Sanjha Chulha’ against defendant, a partnership firm of the
same name, being managed by defendants No. 2 and 3, Sh. Inder
Sood and Sh. Girish Sood, partners.
2. Plaintiff claims the user of tradename ‘Sanjha Chulha’
since 1986 and insists its existence as partnership firm since 1997
at the above address. Plaintiff claims good reputation and asserts
opening of other branches at C. R. Park and Defence Colony as a
proof of expansion of the trademark. Plaintiff insists that it
devised/ coined the trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’, as a combination
of two arbitrary words.
3. Plaintiff submits the existence of following registrations,
which are particulared as below:
SN Application no Trademark Status Class Goods
1. 766554 SANJHA Registered 29 Meat, Fish, Mughlai Indian,
CHULHA Chinese as Tandoori Chicken Tikka.
(LABLE) Sekh Kabab, Butter Chicken, Dal
2. 1040537 SANJHA Registered 29 Preserved And Ready to Eat. I
CHULHA Meat, Fish, Poultry, Mughlai,
(LABLE) Indian, Chinese as
Tandoori Chicken, Tikka, Sekh
Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken and
Non-
Vegetarian and Vegetarian Packed
Foods
3. 1006350 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, Letter
CHULHA Heads, Visiting
(LABLE) Cards, Bill Books,
Cardboard and Cardboard Articles,
Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu
Cards, Stationery
4. 1040539 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, Letter
CHULHA Heads, Visiting
(LABLE) Cards, Bill Books,
Cardboard and Cardboard Articles,
Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu
Cards, Stationery
5. 1006351 SANJHA Registered 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Sugar,
CHULHA Rice, Tapioca, Sago, Coffee
(LABLE) Substitutes, Flour and Flour
Preparations Made from Cereals,
Bread, Biscuits,
Cake, Pastry and
Confectionery, Ices, and All
Digitally
signed by
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 3 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:42:07
+0530
Other Ready Food for Human
Consumption
6. 4581878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel and Restaurants, Food
CHULHA Services, Catering Services
(LABLE)
7. 5239415 SANJHA Objected 29 Preserved, Dried and Ready
CHULHA to Eat Meat, Fish, Poultry,
(WORD Pickle, Mughlai, Indian,
MARK) Chinese as Tandoori
Chicken, Tikk:a, Sekh
Kabab, Butter, Butter
Chicken Jellies, Jams, Fruit
Sauces: Eggs, Milk and Milk
Products: Edible Oils, Fats
Foods and Non-Vegetarian and
Vegetarian Cooked Packed Foods
8. 5239416 SANJHA Objected 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Sugar,
CHULHA Rice, Tapioca Sago, Coffee
(WORD Substitutes, Flour and
MARK) Preparation Made from Cereals,
Bread, Biscuits,
Cake, Pastry and
Confectionery, Ices, Ready Food for
Human Consumption
9. 5239417 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel Restaurant and Food,
CHULHA Beverage and Food Catering
(WORD Seivices, Namely, Providing of
MARK) Food and Beverages for
Consumption on and off the
Premises.
10. 458I878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel And Restaurants, Food
CHULHA Services, Catering Services
(LABEL)
11. 2110609 SANJHA Opposed 43 Hotels And Restaurants, Providing
CHULHA Food And Drink, Take Away Foods,
(LABEL) Temporary Accommodations
Services.
12. 1298323 SANJHA Opposed 42 Hotal and Restaurants, Providing
CHULHA Food and Drink Take Away Foods,
(LABEL) Temporary Accommodation
4. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of promotional activities,
plaintiff has achieved overwhelming success of mark ‘Sanjha
Chulha’, trademark (word and device), which is illustrated by
annual turn-over. Plaintiff has relied upon the sales figure from
2017 to 2022 which are particulared as below:
YEARS SALES (IN RUPEES) (APPROX.)
2017-18 88,82,640
2018-19 13,882,499
2019-20 25,534,304
2020-21 21,674,258
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
Page 4 of 51
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:42:12
+0530
2021-22 26,569,751
5. Plaintiff credits enormous publicity it carried out in Delhi-
NCR region and claims that it spent Rs. 1,23,724/- as expense in
the year 2021 for carrying out the publicity, as a result, plaintiff’s
presence is visible on various search engines. The services of
plaintiff are highly rated and since continuous and long use from
1986, plaintiff asserts to have acquired a well-known reputation
of its mark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ (label and device) within the scope
of Section 2(1)(z)(e) of Trademarks Act.
6. Plaintiff claims to have gathered the information of
defendant’s presence only in October 2017. Learning the
defendant has applied for registration vide application No.
3217600 dated 23.06.2016 in Class 30, plaintiff initiated
opposition proceedings vide opposition bearing No. 906849
against defendant’s application No. 3217610 on 05.11.2017.
Plaintiff’s above opposition was retaliated by defendant who
filed the opposition on 18.04.2018 against plaintiff’s trademark
‘Sanjha Chulha’ (device) bearing application No. 2110609 in
Class 43 vide date 07.03.2011, which was pending till the time of
filing of the suit.
7. Plaintiff learnt that defendant’s application No. 1266381
dated 11.02.2004 in Class 30 for impugned mark was successful
and the mark was registered in the name of defendant No. 1.
Plaintiff finds fault with the registration in wrongfully examining
defendant’s application No. 1266381 and claims it contrary to the
purview of Section 11 of Trademarks Act 1999, as the plaintiff’s
registered trademark was directly copied by defendant as well as
the name of the firm being phonetical and visually identical/
similar to plaintiff’s prior registrations.
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
Page 5 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:42:16
+0530
8. Plaintiff states that though the defendant’s application
was due for renewal on 11.11.2014, it has not been renewed and
must be considered abandoned. Though, the status of the same
has not changed by the trademarks registry even after the expiry
of grace period of two years past the date of renewal. Plaintiff’s
rectification petition bearing No. 264989 against defendant’s
application bearing No. 1266381 on 01.08.2018 is instituted
which is pending. Keeping in view the above, as plaintiff
patiently waited for trademarks registry to provide any relief or
reply, however, none is received, defendant as a precautionary
measure was served with cease and desist notices dated
04.04.2021 and 25.04.2022, despite which defendants are
continuing to carry out contrasting activities.
9. Plaintiff claims that defendants are expanding their
business under the impugned trademark and plaintiff upon
investigation conducted in May 2021 learnt that defendant No. 1
has opened another branch at shop No. 55, HUDA Market,
Sector-46, Fardabad, Haryana. Plaintiff in addition, gathered the
information of defendant’s having started to provide online
services from their shop No. 55, HUDA Market, Sector-46, under
impugned mark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ through delivery platforms
defendants No. 4, 5 and 6. Defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 then were
issued cease and desist notice on 10.05.2022.
10. Plaintiff claims infringement of its trademark and
violation of copyright being ‘prior user’ and ‘registered
proprietor’ of trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ word and device under
Class 16, 29 and 30, and being owner of artistic work ‘Sanjha
Chulha’. It is alleged that overall comparison of trademark under
which defendants are conducting their business cannot be a
coincidence. As the overall comparison shows no difference
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
Page 6 of 51
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:42:20
+0530
between the impugned mark and plaintiff’s trademark ‘Sanjha
Chulha’ label and ‘Sanjha Chulha’ device, it is bound to cause
confusion and association between the two as any ordinary
person of average common intelligence would be led to believe
that food and restaurant business of defendants are related to
plaintiff’s well known mark.
11. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are deliberately infringing
the registered trademark of plaintiff ‘Sanjha Chula’ (label and
device), and are passing-off the services deliberately, by using
and displaying the mark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ in relation to its food
and restaurant services. Plaintiff asserts violation of its common
law and statutory rights under Section 29 of Trademarks Act,
1999 and claims that defendant being competitor of plaintiff are
inclined to claim benefit by use of deceptively similar mark
which is bound to mark confusion amongst the consumers. Based
on circumstances above, plaintiff has prayed for reliefs of
permanent injunction, delivery up and damages.
Written Statement
12. Defendant resisted the plaintiff’s claim of infringement
and passing-off of trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’. Defendant
disputes plaintiff’s claim of exclusivity of word ‘Sanjha Chulha’.
Defendant attributed the origin of Punjabi word ‘Sanjha Chulha’
to the times of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and claimed that Guru Nanak
Dev Ji started the tradition of community kitchen/ langar, where
all women folk would use a single earthen oven/ tandoor for
cooking which led to the tradition of ‘Sanjha Chulha’. He
claimed that word ‘Sanjha Chulha’ became a household word,
reinforcing which, a television series of the same name was
telecasted on Doordarshan in the year 1990. Defendant states that
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 7 of 51
2026.04.11
17:42:24
+0530
they found the use of word ‘Sanjha Chulha’ appropriate for their
restaurant at the time of inception of the restaurant in 1992 and
adopted the same as their tradename.
13. Besides claiming prior use protection under Section 34 of
Trademarks Act, defendant relied on it being a bona fide
concurrent user of the trade name and claimed protection under
Section 12 of the Trademarks Act 1999 for above adoption and
retention of trademark.
14. Defendant asserts that the first restaurants of defendant
started from a rented premises located at Shop No. 146, Sector-
16A, Faridabad, Haryana 122007. However, defendants revenue
grew rapidly since adoption and thereafter around the year 1996,
Defendants shifted to its own premises at Booth/Shop No. 12,
Sector-19, Part-II Market, Faridabad, Haryana 122007.
Defendant relies on the possession certficate dated May 27, 1996
issued by District Town Planner, Faridabad, Copy of certificate
issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation certifying
defendant’s establishment within the purview of Section 1 (5) of
the ESI Act with effect from September 23, 1997 alongwith
reviews of Defendant’s customers as proofs in their favour.
15. Defendant claims that in the year 2000, the business of
defendant received more growth as a result of which, defendant
took on rent two neighboring premises located at Booth/Shop
No. 14 and 16, Sector-19, Part-II Market, Faridabad, Haryana
122007. Defendant expanded its business and extended it into
one big outlet as a result of the above growth. In the year 2011,
Defendant purchased one of the neighboring premises, which
was earlier rented i.e. Booth/Shop No. 16, Sector-19, Part-II
Market, Faridabad, Haryana 122007. Reliance on covayence
deed dated December 1, 2011 is placed to show such occupation
Digitally
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
Page 8 of 51
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:42:43
+0530
for the purpose of running the restarurant.
16. Defendant claims to have ventured into corporate catering
business in the year 2000 by establishing an outlet at H-14/6,
DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon 122008. Due to onset of global recession
in the year 2007-2008, the said outlet was closed. Defendant
claims reliance upon the sale deed dated November 13, 2000
w.r.t. H-14/6, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon 122008 in the name of
wifes of defendant no. 2 and 3 to show that the business being
carried out in name of SANJHA CHULHA.
17. Defendant claims that in the year 2007-2008 premises
located at Village Bhopani, Greater Faridabad was leased where
from defendant commenced SANJHA CHULHA BAKERS in
order to cater to corporate snacks business which business
flourished reasonably till the year 2020 however on account of
Covid-19 pandemic, the business was closed. Reliance on lease
deed dated August 19, 2009 entered by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3
with respect to above outlet is placed.
18. Defendant expanded their business in the year 2013, and
opened a Branch at Shop No 55, HUDA Market, Sector 46,
Faridabad, Haryana – 121001 which outlet was shifted in the
year 2022 to Shop No 71, HUDA Market, Sector 46, Faridabad,
Haryana – 121001.
19. Defendant claims the above outlet thrived from the year
2012 onwards and defendants have been commanding a turnover
of over Rs. 1 crores per annum from the outlets. Defendant states
that its turnover for the financial year 2021-2022 alone was more
than Rs. 5.5 crores which is three times the turnover of the
plaintiff’s for the last 5 years, which turnover of plaintiff is not
even certified by any Chartered Accountant. Defendant relied on
the certificate issued by the Charted Accountant evidencing
Digitally
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
Page 9 of 51
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:42:47
+0530
turnover of the Defendant from the year 2012-2013 till 2021-
2022. Defendant further relied on the Specimen of invoice issued
to one of its customer as well.
20. Defendant states that its business is registered under the
provisions of GST and defendants have been regularly filing
GST returns with the appropriate Authorities. The copies of GST
certificate along with GST returns are filed from 2017-2018 till
2021-2022 and are relied upon documents by defendant.
21. Defendant states to have obtained necessary License
under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 the copy of which
is relied to draw support.
22. Defendant disputed the bona fide of plaintiff in putting up
the plaint and challenged its intention by alleging that plaintiff
was served with a complete set of documents evidencing use of
trade name ‘Sanjha Chulha’ by defendant since 1992. Defendant
claims that plaintiff deliberately refrained to file the said
documents, which are in possession of plaintiff and are
evidencing uncontroverted use of mark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ by
defendant since 1992.
23. Defendant asserted that plaintiff’s claim is barred under
Section 33 of Trademarks Act for being filed beyond the period
of 5 years (from 2017 till 2022). defendant claimed that plaintiff,
despite having clear knowledge, took no action against the
defendant deliberately and thus, acquiescenced for a continuous
period of use of a registered trademark, despite being aware of
use in which context plaintiff shall not be held entitled to oppose
the user of defendant’s trademark in relation of goods and
services it has been used.
24. Defendant points to it holding the registration under Class
30 under application No. 1266381 which continued in
Digitally
NIRJA
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
signed by
NIRJA
BHATIA
Page 10 of 51
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:42:52
+0530
defendant’s name, till the date of application for rectification
having been filed on 01.08.2018. Defendant states that since it
did not renew the mark, once it was due for renewal, the mark
was renewed from the register.
25. In order to buttress the claim of prior user, defendant
relied on application No. 3217600 for registration of trademark
in Class 30 vide date 23.03.2016 with a categorical user claim
since 01.04.1992. Defendant’s application is accepted by
Registrar of Trademarks and published in trademark journal No.
1815 dated 18.09.2017 against which plaintiff filed opposition on
11.11.2017 which opposition is pending with the Registrar of
Trademarks.
26. Defendant states that in order to protect its rights,
defendant has filed opposition against plaintiff’s application No.
2110609 dated 18.04.2018 where the defendant served the
plaintiff with complete set of documents, evidencing use of mark
‘Sanjha Chulha’ on 11.10.2019 showing clear user claim since
1992.
27. Defendant finds fault with plaintiff’s claim for damages
and states that suit is filed merely on invoices and sales figure
which do not find any backing by way of any certificate by
Chartered Accountant. Defendant challenges the plaintiff’s claim
of enjoying a well-known trademark as opposed to that of
defendant by contrasting the plaintiff’s sales figure of Rs. 26 lacs
per annum, with sales figure of Rs. 5.55 crore per annum.
Defendant relies on bar of Section 11 (6) of Trademarks Act and
states that the attempt of filing of present suit is backed by
plaintiff’s devious intention to nip any competition in bud.
28. Defendant submits that the artistic work of both parties
are distinguishable and there is no similarity between the two
Digitally
signed by
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 11 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:42:56
+0530
artworks. Defendant denied any infringement under section 51 of
the Copyrights Act, 1957 alleging it a figment of imagination of
plaintiff.
29. Defendant states that the claim raised by plaintiff are
boisterous. Defendant asserts that there is no question of any
confusion being caused to the minds of consumers creating any
nexus between plaintiff’s use of trade mark and that of defendant
as plaintiff has failed to prove any goodwill outside the territory
of New Delhi. The defendants have conducted their business in
State of Haryana in Faridabad District only, where plaintiff has
no presence. Defendants state that as per plaintiff’s own
statement its activities are confined to the localities of Kailash
Colony, C.R. Park and Defence Colony only.
30. Defendant disputes that plaintiff ever engaged or indulged
in any promotional activities and investment of time and money.
The claim of plaintiff to above extent is called in question as
ludicrous.
31. Defendant disputes that plaintiff had achieved
overwhelming success and states that the plaintiff has avoided to
state any proof of sales upon certificate from its Chartered
Accountant or has shared evidence to showcase its purported
promotional activities and investment of time and money.
32. Defendant denies that plaintiff carried out any
advertisement least a substantial number by print media or
through leading newspapers, magazines, Internet, hoardings,
display boards, trade literature or trade novels etc. and states that
the claim of plaintiff is not supported with even a shred of
evidence.
33. Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s attempt to claim
proprietary in the trade mark and begging a secondary meaning
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
Page 12 of 51
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:43:00
+0530
through basic internet as such is ridiculous. Defendant states that
plaintiff has failed to produce any documentary evidence in
support of its claim. Defendant alleged plaintiff’s engaged in
concealment of material facts by avoiding to detail that
defendant’s application before Trademark Authorities bearing no.
3217600 was filed with user claim of 1992.
34. Defendant challenges plaintiff’s entitlement and claims its
pursuit of its proceedings before the Registrar as mala fide.
Defendant submits that the plaintiff despite being served with the
counter statement on March 16, 2018, as per the Trade Marks
Rules 2017, avoided to file evidence under Rule 45 in the
opposition proceedings in time. Plaintiff, realizing that the same
would lead to abandonment of their opposition, on November 3,
2019, filed an Interlocutory Petition in the opposition to stall the
proceedings which all facts have been deliberately concealed.
35. Defendant asserts that plaintiff has pursued the the
proceedings against defendant with malice, While admitting to
the opposition of application of defendant no. 2110609, Plaintiff
avoided to stated that the Answering Defendants filed the
opposition with user claim since 1992. Plaintiff deliberately
concealed all the documents exchanged between the parties
during the course of above opposition proceedings. Defendant
asserts that after filing the opposition in the above said
proceedings on April 18, 2018, Defendants on November 10,
2018, filed its voluminous evidence of 100 pages substantiating
Defendants’ use of the mark SANJHA CHULHA since 1992
which all facts have been actively concealed by the Plaintiff.
36. Defendant affirms the non-renewal of trade mark
application number 1266381 by them, however, claims the
removal of trade mark registration does not deprive the
Digitally
signed by
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 13 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:04
+0530
Defendants to claim common law rights on the mark. Defendant
submits that the act of non renewal of trade mark application
would not deprive the defendant to claim concurrent rights over
the mark SANJHA CHULHA through its tremendous use since
the year 1992.
37. Defendant disputes the service of cease-and-desist notice
upon the Defendants as alleged by plaintiff and claims that
plaintiff has avoided to file the tracking report of the above
purported notice dated April 4, 2021. Defendants submit that
Plaintiff at no point of time served any notice on the Defendants
which act was in furtherance of Plaintiff’s knowledge that the
once the notice is served, the Defendants would rely on their user
claim of 1992, which fact Plaintiff wanted to conceal from the
Hon’ble Court.
38. Defendant claims its presence on e-commerce platform
since 2015 and asserts the knowledge of such existence to
plaintiff.
Replication
39. Plaintiff responded to the written statement of defendant
by filing the replication rebutting the statements made by
defendant in the written statement.
40. Plaintiff took preliminary objections stating that Plaintiff’s
trademark “SANJHA CHULHA” bearing Application no.
5239415 and 1298323 was objected at the time of filing of suit
which fact plaintiff mentioned in plaint. However, during the
course of the proceedings, the aforementioned mark of the
Plaintiff under the Application no. 5239415 and 1298323 has
been registered. Plaintiff applied for Legal Proceeding certificate
for aforementioned trademark Application and has filed the Copy
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by Page 14 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:08
+0530
of Registration certificate, online status, Form TM-M and
acknowledgment receipts on record.
41. Plaintiff claims that the turn over of plaintiff under the
trade name and trademark “Sanjha Chulha” for the financial year
2021-2022 is Rs.2.65 Crores and not Rs.26 Lakhs which is
mentioned by the defendant wrongly.
42. Plaintiff denied that the suit is misconceived and/ or the
process is vitiated warranting dismissal of the suit. The rest of the
pleas raised by the defendant on merits were replied para wise.
Plaintiff specifically denied the knowledge of the defendants
running the business of restaurants and catering since 2017.
Plaintiff denied that during the course of opposition proceedings
in trademark application no. 2110609, in October 2018, the
defendant served to plaintiff a complete set of documents
evidencing use for mark “SANJHA CHULHA” since 1992.
43. Plaintiff denied the use of trademark “SANJHA
CHULHA” by defendant since 1992. Plaintiff submits that it has
disclosed all material facts in the claim and the relevant
opposition by defendant are stated by submission of documents
appended to plaint.
44. Plaintiff disputed the statement that it has acquiesced the
use of trade mark by defendant for continuous period of 5 years
as despite being aware of the such use by the defendants, plaintiff
did not oppose such use of trademark. Reliance on the law in
Marico Limited vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors. [2018 (76) PTC 168
(Delhi)] is raised. Plaintiff denied that defendants are entitled to
relief under Section 12 and 33 of the Trademark Act on grounds
of honest and concurrent use. Plaintiff alleged that defendant has
made a concocted story in the present case as the defendant
adopted the impugned trademark of plaintiff to encash the
Digitally
NIRJA
signed by
NIRJA
BHATIA
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 15 of 51
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:43:12
+0530
colossal reputation and goodwill enjoyed by plaintiff in the same
business since 1986.
45. It is claimed that defendant can not be allowed to
approbate and reprobate at the same time as while disputing the
use of trade mark SANJHA CHULHA by plaintiff alleging tt a
generic term, defendant can not claim the adoption and use of the
same reliance is made upon Hidustan Emroidery Pills Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. K. Ravindra and Co. 1974 (76) BOM LR 146 Plaintiff has
denied the statement of defendant of having risen from humble
beginning and or having acquired the property bearing no. Shop
No. 146, Sector-16A, Faridabad, Haryana 122007 or having
commenced or at ventured into corporate catering business from
outlet no. of H-14/6, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon 122008. It is denied
that in 2007-08, defendant leased the premises located at Village
Bhopani, Greater Faridabad from where they commenced
SANJHA CHULHA BAKERS in order to cater to corporate
snacks business which business was closed due to COVID-19 in
year 2020. The conveyance lease deed relied upon by the
defendant is disputed and denied. Plaintiff disputes that
defendant has grossed the turn over of more than Rs. 5.5 crores
which is three times the turnover of the Plaintiff’s for the last 5
year.
46. Plaintiff admitted as matter of record that on 11.02.2004,
defendant filed its first application for make SANJHA CHULHA
in class 30 under number 1266381. Plaintiff admits as a matter of
record that the mark was registered in the name of Defendant No.
1 against which on August 1, 2018 plaintiff filed its application
for rectification of the mark. Plaintiff reiterates that the
rectification petition was served duly on the defendant through
notice sent by the Registrar of Trademarks on 22.07.2019 to
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
Page 16 of 51
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:43:16
+0530
which defendant preferred no counter statement/ reply. Plaintiff
disputed and denied that under Rule 64 of the Trade Marks
Rules, 2017, as the Registrar did not send a notice on Form O-3
to the Defendant, did not renew the mark and has been arbitrarily
removed from Register. Plaintiff claims it a matter of record that
defendant challenged the removal of trademark from the register
by filing application before the Registrar of Trade Marks.
Plaintiff claims as a matter of record that on March 23, 2016,
Defendant filed another application for the mark SANJHA
CHULHA in Class 30 under number 3217600 with a categorical
user claim since April 1, 1992. Plaintiff reiterates as a matter of
record that his application was accepted by the Registrar of Trade
Marks and published in Trademarks Journal Number 1815 dated
September 18, 2017. Plaintiff affirms that on November 5, 2017,
Plaintiff filed opposition to the said mark which is still pending
with registrar of Trade Marks.
47. Plaintiff denied that during the course of opposition
proceedings, in trademark application no. 2110609 on October
11, 2019, Defendant served the Plaintiff with a complete set of
documents evidencing use of the mark SANJHA CHULHA by
Defendant since the year 1992. Plaintiff denied that it has
deliberately refrained from disclosing facts which are material
with intention to collect an order.
48. Plaintiff challenges the defendant’s claim of operating
their business with impugned trademark since 1992 and stated
that defendants have failed to produce any evidence to the said
effect. Plaintiff alleges that defendant is intending to ride upon
plaintiff’s good will and because of the adoption of trademark by
defendant, plaintiff is suffering tremendously. Plaintiff disputes
that the sales figures provided by plaintiff on record are not
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by Page 17 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:20
+0530
backed by certificate of Charted Accountant, and/ or against
plaintiff’s meager sale figure of Rs. 26 Lakh, defendant’s against
sale of Rs. 5.5 Cr under the trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ shall be
rated high. Plaintiff submits that its sale figures are incorrectly
mentioned by defendant whereas plaintiff’s actual sales for the
year 2021-22 was around Rs. 2.6 crores.
49. Plaintiff disputes that the suit is liable to be dismissed on
account of misjoinder of cause of action and relies on provisions
of section section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
50. Replying to para wise statement to the defendant’s written
statement, plaintiff disputed each statement and reiterated the
assertions made originally in the plaint.
51. As the pleadings are complete, a brief note on the
proceedings is recorded.
Note of proceedings.
52. The suit of plaintiff is received before Ld. Predecessor on
18.05.2022, who was pleased to put the matter for consideration
as it was supported with an application seeking urgent relief U/o
XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Plaintiff’s application for grant of
Ad-interim injunction was allowed vide detailed order dated
06.06.2022. The matter in the meanwhile was transferred, where
the defendant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4
CPC seeking revocation of order dated 06.06.2022. Defendant
moved another application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Vide
order dated 04.08.2022, defendant’s application U/o XXXIX
Rule 4 CPC was allowed and Plaintiff’s application U/o XXXIX
Rule 1 and 2CPC was dismissed. Defendant filed the written
statement, Ld. Local Commissioner filed his report dated
04.07.2022. The application for deletion of defendant No. 5 wasSanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally signed
by NIRJA Page 18 of 51
NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:24
+0530
allowed to be placed during proceedings dated 17.02.2023,
Defendant No. 4 to 6 were deleted from array of parties vide
order dated 18.03.2023. Case management hearing was
conducted and issues were framed vide above date. Parties were
directed to lead their respective evidence. During evidence
plaintiff’s application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC for filing
the documents was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2023.
Additional documents were taken on record. Sh. Nand Kishore,
partner of plaintiff examined himself as PW1, whereafter PE was
closed. During defendant’s evidence, defendant moved an
application under Order XI Rule 1 (10) & (12) CPC which
application was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2024. During the
process another application U/s 151 CPC for additional evidence
was filed. The said application was dismissed with cost of Rs.
2,000/- vide order dated 25.09.2024. Defendant examined Sh.
Inder Sood as DW-1. The DE was closed on 11.12.2024. Both
parties exhausted several opportunities for making submissions
orally as well by tendering their written submissions with
voluminous case laws. After the exhaustive arguments and
rebuttal arguments, matter is reserved for judgment.
Issues
53. Vide order dated 18.03.2023 following issues are framed:
“1. Whether plaintiff is the proprietor and prior user of the
trade name and trade mark Sanjha Chulha and the logo and
whether the plaintiff has exclusivity over the trade mark
Sanjha Chulha? OPP
2. Whether defendants no. 1 to 3 have infringed plaintiff’s
rights by using the trade name and the trade mark Sanjha
Chulha and the logo? OPP
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:29
+0530Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 19 of 51
3. Whether the use of the trade name and trade mark Sanjha
Chulha and the logo by defendants no. 1 to 3 amounts to
passing of? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunctions as
prayed?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of account
and damages as prayed?OPP
6. Relief.”
54. Before proceedings further, a brief note on the evidence is
made.
Plaintiff’s Evidence.
55. Sh. Nand Kishore, PW1, tendered his examination by way
of affidavit. He exhibited the document as below:
1. The original Teh-Bazaari receipts dt. 26.12.1985, 16.01.1987,
29.01.1987 and 12.06.1989 is Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) (at page no. 19
to 20)
2. The copies of telephone bills for the years 1994 to 2017 raised
by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Reliance and Airtle in
the name of the plaintiff are Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) (at page no. 21 to
58).
3. Copies of all certificates of Trademarks granted under
applications numbers 766554, 1040537, 1006350, 1040539,
1006351, 1298323, 5239415 and 5514907 and a representation
of the plaintiffs trademark are Marked as Mark PW1/3 (colly.) (at
page no. 59 to 90)
4. Print out of Income Tax Returns and acknowledgement for the
assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23
are exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 (colly.) (at page no. 91 to 327)
Digitally signed
by NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:32
+0530Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 20 of 51
5. Copy of article published in the Hindustan Times is hereby
tendered in evidence are marked as Mark PW1/5. (at page no.
328 to 329)
6. Copy of certificate of excellence for India Hospitality and
Tourism presented to the plaintiff by Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra
on 24.10.2018 on behalf of the Hope Communication (Research)
along with photographs of the occasion are are marked as Mark
PW1/6 (colly.) (at page no. 330 to 332)
7. Copy of certificate of Chatkara on behalf of 98.3 Radio Mirchi
sponsored by Hajmola is marked as Mark PW1/7. (at page no.
333)
8. The printouts of the extract of status of Application nos.
1266381, 3217600, 3217601 and 4784430 are marked as Mark
PW1/8. (colly.) (at page no. 334 to 337)
9. Copy of rectification petition dt. 01.08.2018 in relation to
trademark application no. 1266381 is marked as Mark PW1/9.
(at page no. 338 to 355)
10. Copy of legal notice dt. 04.04.2021 is marked as Mark
PW1/10. (at page no. 356 to 358)
11. Copy of legal notice dt. 25.04.2022 is marked as Mark
PW1/11. (at page no. 359 to 364)
12. Copy of legal notice dt. 10.05.2022 is marked as Mark
PW1/12. (at page no. 365 to 372)
13. Copy of Menu of the plaintiff restaurant is marked as Mark
PW1/13. (at page no. 373 to 375)
14. Printout of the plaintiffs home page on the Zomato App is
marked as Mark PW1/14. (at page no. 376)
15. Printout of the home page of Domino’s Mc Donalds and
Haldirams situated at Nehru Place, Greater Kailash-II and Lajpat
Nagar is marked as Mark PW1/15. (at page no. 377 to 379)
BHATIASanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 21 of 51
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:37
+0530
16. Printout of the defendant home page on the Zomato App is
marked as Mark PW1/16. (at page no. 380 to 383)
Defendant’s Evidence.
56. Sh. Inder sood, DW1, tendered his examination along
with following documents:
(1) Power of attorney dated 17.06.2022 is Ex.DW1/1 (OSR).
(2) Partnership deed dated 17.12.2003 is not filed. Ex.DW1/2
stands de-exhibited.
(3) Extract of news / scripts / literatures taken from the internet is
Ex.DW1/3 (Colly) running into 20 pages (Page no. 5 to 6 is
extract of literature, Page no. 7 to 11 is news, Page no. 12 to 27 is
literature)
(4) Possession certificate dated 27.05.1996 issued by District
Town Planner is Ex.DW1/4 (OSR).
(5) Certificate issued by the ESIC stating my firms establishment
fall within the purview of Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act is
Ex.DW1/5.
(6) Few reviews dated 27.04.1998, 13.04.1998 ( two documents)
and 01.02.1999 of my firms customers are tendered as Ex.DW1/6
(OSR).
(7) Income Tax Assessment order of Assement year 2005-06 is
not filed. Ex.DW1/7 stands de-exhibited.
(8) Demand notice is not filed. Ex.DW1/8 stands de-exhibited.
(9) Conveyance Deed dated 02, May 2012 is Ex.DW1/9 (OSR).
(10) Sale deed dated 13.11.2000 in favour of my wife and my
sister in law is Mark A. Ex.DW1/10 stands de-exhibited as the
original is not on record.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:43:41
+0530Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 22 of 51
(11) Certificates issued by Punjab national Bank, SBI that my
firms is maintaining acccount in respective years 2000 and 2003
is Ex.DW1/11 (Colly) (OSR)
(12) Account ledger inquiry is not filed. Ex.DW1/12 stands de-
exhibited.
(13) Lease deed dated 19.08.2009 entered by me and my
brother is Ex.DW1/13 (OSR) Page 59 to 65
(14) Rent Agreement dated 04.09.2013 w.r.t. premises located
at Shop No. 55, Sector 46, Huda Market, Faridabad is not filed.
Ex.DW1/14 stands de-exhibited.
(15) Specimen of one such invoice issued by defendant no. 1 is
Ex.DW1/15.
(16) My firm’s GST certificate along with GST returns filed by
my firm from 2017-18 till 2021-22 is Ex.DW1/16 (colly). (Page
no. 69 to 100).
(17) Necessary license under Food Safety and Standard Act,
2006 is Ex.DW1/17.
(18) Restaurant’s Menu Card ciruculated in the year 2017-18
is Ex.DW1/17 A.
(19) Restaurant’s current Menu Card not filed. Ex.DW1/18
stands de-exibited.
(20) Few photographs of both my restaurants located in Sector
19 and Sector 46 is not filed. Ex.DW1/19 stands de-exhibited.
(21) Registration Certificate that was granted to my firm
under number 1266381 is Ex.DW1/20. ( objected to mode ).
(22) Relevant documents w.r.t. trade mark application number
3217600 and the opposition filed by the plaintiff as downloaded
from the official website of Registrar of Trade marks is
Ex.DW1/21 (Colly).
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:45
+0530Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 23 of 51
(23) Relevant documents w.r.t. trade mark application number
2110609 and the opposition filed by the firm as downloaded
from the official website of Registrar of Trade marks is
Ex.DW1/22 (Colly). ( objected to mode ).
DW-1 was again examined on 25.09.2025 and he tendered the
following documents:
(1) List of all the links of various websites wherein the plaintiff is
making defamatory statements against my firm is Ex.DW1/23.
(2) Sale data of my firm from June 1, 2022 till June 16, 2022 in
order to substantiate that each day my firm was losing at least Rs.
50,000/- is Ex.DW1/23 A (OSR).
(3) Statement of expenses incurred by my firm each day in order
to run its two outlets is Ex.DW1/24 (OSR).
(4) Certificate issued by CA of Defendant no. 1 w.r.t. monthly
salary expenses incurred by my firm is Ex.DW1/25 (OSR)
(5) Statement of showing total sales with respected to premises
located at Shop No. 55, Sector 46, Huda Market, Faridabad from
01.04.2022 to 31.12.2022 is Ex.DW1/26 (OSR)
57. He was cross examined by Sh. Shubhanker Sen, a brief
assessment of cross examination of DW1 shall be made in the
paras reserve for reasons for the decisions in order to keep the
privity in the judgment.
58. Before adverting to the discussion a brief note of
arguments made by the counsel is taken note as both the counsel
exhausted number of opportunities for rendering their verbose
arguments.
Note of arguments
59. Both the parties have exhaustively made their respective
arguments as noted against the proceedings dated 24.02.2025,
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
Page 24 of 51
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:50
+0530
27.03.2025, 23.04.2025, 08.07.2025, 21.08.2025, 20.09.2025,
01.11.2025, 04.12.2025, 12.01.2025. Plaintiff also submitted his
written submissions.
Findings
60. Plaintiff’s assertion behind the present claim is resting on
the foundation of establishing the ‘proprietary’ of user of
‘trademark’ against which the issue No. 1 is framed by Ld.
Predecessor. Plaintiff also insisted the proprietary in trademark
through the registration as well.
61. Plaintiff claimed the entitlement in trademark ‘Sanjha
Chulha’ based on averrment of its use from the year 1986, though
plaintiff claims to have commenced the food business in the year
1968. PW-1 during evidence asserted his interest in cooking and
claimed that his creative interest to cook up different recipes
prompted him to the restaurant business as he decided to bring
the old Delhi food delicacies to the realm of South Delhi. The
above brought him to conceive the cooking business which
ultimately fructified in a restaurant, the humble beginning of
which commenced from Teh Bazari in the name of ‘Sanjha
Chulha’. To prove the above facts, reliance is made vehemently
on Ex. PW-1/1 Teh Bazari slips issued by MCD (the mode of
exhibition of slips have been objected to during the stage of
tendering of documents). The document Ex. PW-1/1 collectively
shows Teh Bazari slips dated 26.12.1985, 16.01.1987,
29.01.1987, 12.06.1989 at pages 19-20.
62. In addition to Ex. PW-1/1 (Teh Bazari slips), PW-1 relied
on telephone bills (Ex. PW-1/2 colly) (pages 21 to 58), asserting
the issuance of bills in its name ‘Sanjha Chulha’ since 1994
onwards. The reliance further is made on the trademark
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally signed
Page 25 of 51
by NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:53
+0530
certificates granted through applications No. 766554, 1040537,
1006350, 1040539, 1006351, 1298323, 523419 and 5514907,
which all certificates have been marked collectively as Ex. PW-
1/3 (pages 59 to 90).
63. Since the documents have been proposed by plaintiff as
part of evidence, in trial for assertion of proprietary rights, it is, at
this stage, requisite to test their strength.
64. Document Ex. PW-1/1 (colly), the Teh Bazari slips (four
in number), are stated as originals. While the slips have been
proposed in evidence, plaintiff’s lack of effort to call any witness
with record pertaining to issuance of Teh Bazari in its name as
‘Sanjha Chulha’ must be observed. Plaintiff made no effort to
seek corroboration of the document Ex. PW-1/1 from the MCD
i.e. the source authority which issued the same. While a specific
objection to the mode of proof against the exhibit is noted, it is
pertinent to observe that the documents were put before the
witness (PW-1) Sh. Nand Kishore, the alleged recipient of Teh
Bazari as on the face of the documents the words ‘Sanjha Chulja’
appeared inserted later on. Instead, the receipts Ex. PW-1/1
(colly) noted Nand Kishore S/o Jiya Lal as the recipient. The
word ‘Sanjha Chulha’ appears to be inserted somewhere in
between already written text which insertion is apparent on bare
face of the documents. The said is true for all the above slips.
PW-1 was confronted with the above, which he denied, however,
made no explanation regarding the change of colour of ink as
well as handwriting in which the insertions ‘Sanjha Chulha’
found place on all four slips. The controversy above could have
been easily resolved had plaintiff brought the record or register
bearing Teh Bazari record based upon which the document Ex.
PW-1/1 was issued. It may be argued that record being decades
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally signed
by NIRJA
Page 26 of 51
NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:43:59
+0530
old would have been destroyed or may not be made available.
However, at least, a report from issuing authority could have
reflected to positive intentions of plaintiff. By avoiding any step
altogether for production of any record showing issuance of Teh
Bazari in name of ‘Sanjha Chulha’. Plaintiff has allowed to
weaken the strength of document Ex. PW-1/1 as the bare perusal
of the slips does not show that the Teh Bazari existed in the name
of ‘Sanjha Chulha’, which at the most, could only be assessed in
name of Nand Kishore S/o Jiya Lal.
65. Intriguingly, through the plaintiff claims existence of
‘Sanjha Chulha’ based on Ex. PW-1/1 since 1985, as per its own
assertions, the partnership was constituted much later. The
partnership admittedly was formed in 1991, and could only be
claimed to have been put on paper on 01.04.2001. In continuation
of above observation, it is relevant to take note that while the
partnership deed dated 01.04.2001 was proposed initially with
the bunch of documents filed with the plaint, plaintiff for reasons
unexplained did not exhibit the partnership deed as part of the
examination affidavit and/ or relied upon the same, which could
only be observed from the questions put under cross-
examination. Though, it is necessary to take note that though the
witness was put through confrontation, the documents were not
exhibited which may be an oversight and may not dilute the
effect of cross-examination.
66. Reliance is also made on telephone bills which are
claimed to have been issued in favour of ‘Sanjha Chulha’ from
1994 to 2017. The defendant raised objection to the mode of
proof of the telephone bills which were collectively Ex. PW-1/2
(pages 21 to 58). At this stage, it is noted that merely marking a
document an exhibit would not tantamount to its proof which
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
Page 27 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:44:12
+0530
shall be subjected to assessment upon effect of totaling of
evidence. It is noted that the perusal of each page of telephone
bills, however, tells a different address than 31, Kailash Colony
Market, at which the plaintiff claims itself to be residing. Plaintiff
has placed voluminous bills, however, mostly do not confirm to
its incorporation its name as ‘Sanjha Chulha’ and/ or show
existence of its functioning as restaurant from the address
detailed in the plaint.
67. The law relied upon by plaintiff in Dalgreen Agro Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Shaikh Asadur Rahman and others, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 3284
itself prepounds that despite the elements being admitted, the rights
of a party (in the present case the defendant), to subject the
document and its contents to cross-examine would not be waived.
This observation abundantly clarifies that plaintiff cannot take
advantage of defendant’s affidavit of admission/ denial to save itself
from the rigors of proving the document despite its existence being
admitted as plaintiff is still under the burden of proving its
substance. A mark of exhibit which would be made at the stage of
admission/ denial itself, would not save the document from rigors
of cross-examination as it would still be open for assessment to the
response by witness in cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court detailed the above intention in para 12. The law finds no
deviation from what has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.
V. E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P.
Temple and AR, (2003) 8 SCC 752 . Rather, the observations are
showing continuity. It is only keeping in view the intent of the
Commercial Courts Act, which curtails the procedure while
receiving the supporting documents from parties. Moreover, by
admitting the contents of the document would not automatically
amount to admitting the truth behind the contents. The said
Digitally
signed by
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 28 of 51
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:44:15
+0530
observation also finds place in the law laid in Life Insurance
Corporation of India and another Vs. Rampal Singh, 2010 (4) SCC
491, relied by the defendant. The observations are excerpted below:
“31.Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that
contents of documents are required to be proved either by
primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission
of documents may amount to admission of contents but not
its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked
as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon
by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved
by merely filing in a court.”
68. The reading of the above makes it amply clear that even if
the writing on the document is admitted, the plaintiff would still be
burdened to prove the truth behind the writing.
69. Merely for the reason that defendant admits that the
application for registration finds mention of user claim stated by
plaintiff w.e.f 01.01.1986, plaintiff will not be absolved of proving
the fact of the said user from the claimed date, as in view of law
relied upon by both sides, it needs to be construed that while a
document remains admitted with the writing, the truth behind such
writing must be proved. Plaintiff merely based on the admission of
its filing the application for registration would not be absolved to
prove the fact of user of the trademark w.e.f 01.01.1986 as is being
claimed.
70. It is in light of the above observations the application of the
remaining judgments on this issue which are filed by defendant are
now assessed as defendant to counter the plea of him being bound
by the plea made in affidavit of admission/ denial filed under Order
XI Rule 4 of Commercial Courts Act has proposed to counter the
plaintiff through laws in Sonu @ Amar Vs. State of Haryana,
(2017) 8 SCC 570; Kundan Singh Vs. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del
13647; Amit Khosla Vs. Sunita Khosla, CM(M) 1134.2017 passed
by Hon’ble Delhi High Court DOD 13.10.2017 . At the outset, it is
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
Page 29 of 51
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:44:19
+0530
taken note that the judgments relied do not provide precedent and
are based largely upon the assessment of in cases arising out of
criminal jurisdiction. The jurisprudence for assessment of evidence
in a criminal case is diametrically different and hence except
Venkatachalla Gounder (supra), no other judgment offers support to
defendant.
71. Reverting to original discussions, it is observed that
significant reliance is placed in order to claim proprietorship
under the trademark on applications No. 766554, 1040537,
1006350, 1040539, 1006351, 1298323, 523419 and 5514907
(Ex. PW-1/3 colly). Plaintiff has detailed the same in a tabulated
chart and it is useful, at this stage, to extract the details in the
above mode:
SN Applicat Trademar Status Class Goods Date of
ion no k Application
1 766554 SANJHA Registered 29 Meat, Fish, Mughlai 19.08.1997
CHULHA Indian, Chinese as
(LABLE) Tandoori Chicken Tikka.
Sekh Kabab, Butter Chicken, Dal 2 1040537 SANJHA Registered 29 Preserved And Ready to 30.08.2001 CHULHA Eat. I (LABLE) Meat, Fish, Poultry, Mughlai, Indian, Chinese as Tandoori Chicken, Tikka, Sekh Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken and Non- Vegetarian and Vegetarian Packed Foods 3 1006350 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, 30.04.2001 CHULHA Letter Heads, Visiting (LABLE) Cards, Bill Books, Cardboard and Cardboard Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu Cards, Stationery 4 1040539 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, 30.08.2001 CHULHA Letter Heads, Visiting (LABLE) Cards, Bill Books, Cardboard and Cardboard Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu Cards, Stationery 5 1006351 SANJHA Registered 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, 30.08.2001 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 30 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2026.04.11 17:44:24 +0530 CHULHA Sugar, (LABLE) Rice, Tapioca, Sago, Coffee Substitutes, Flour and Flour Preparations Made from Cereals, Bread, Biscuits, Cake, Pastry and Confectionery, Ices, and All Other Ready Food for Human Consumption 6 4581878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel and Restaurants, 30.04.2001 CHULHA Food (LABLE) Services, Catering Services 7 5239415 SANJHA Objected 29 Preserved, Dried and 08.12.2021 CHULH Ready A to Eat Meat, Fish, Poultry, (WORD Pickle, Mughlai, Indian, MARK) Chinese as Tandoori Chicken, Tikk:a, Sekh Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken Jellies, Jams, Fruit Sauces: Eggs, Milk and Milk Products: Edible Oils, Fats Foods and Non- Vegetarian and Vegetarian Cooked Packed Foods 8 5239416 SANJHA Objected 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, CHULH Sugar, A Rice, Tapioca Sago, (WORD Coffee MARK) Substitutes, Flour and Preparation Made from Cereals, Bread, Biscuits, Cake, Pastry and Confectionery, Ices, Ready Food for Human Consumption 9 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel Restaurant and 5239417 CHULH Food, Beverage and Food A Catering Seivices, (WORD Namely, Providing of MARK) Food and Beverages for Consumption on and off the Premises. 10 458I878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel And Restaurants, CHULH Food Services, Catering A Services (LABEL) 11 SANJHA Opposed 43 Hotels And Restaurants, 2110609 CHULH Providing Food And A Drink, Take Away Foods, (LABEL) Temporary Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 31 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2026.04.11 17:44:28 +0530 Accommodations Services. 12 1298323 SANJHA Opposed 42 Hotal and Restaurants, 26.07.2004 CHULH Providing Food and A Drink Take Away Foods, (LABEL) Temporary Accommodation
72. While the defendant does not dispute the above
registrations, defendant vehemently argues against the exclusive
dominance against the registration claiming that the mark
‘Sanjha Chulha’ being ‘generic’, is incapable of being
monopolized at the hands of plaintiff. Vehement reliance has
been placed upon the law laid in Inder Raj Sahni Vs. Neha Vs.
Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3341 ;
Amaravathi Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hotel Grand Karaikudi, C.
S. No. 34 of 2021 passed by Hon’ble Madras High Court ;
Goenka Institute of Education & Research Vs. Anjani Kumar
Goenka & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1691; Nandhini Deluxe
Vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited,
(2018) 9 SCC 183, to highlight the above arguments.
73. However, plaintiff countered the above arguments of
defendant by relying on Automatic Electric Vs. R. K. Dhawan
and ors., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27 (para 16); Aktibolaget Volvo
and ors Vs. R. Venkatachalam and anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del
226 and Sunil Mittal and anr. Vs. Darzi on Call, 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 7934, to claim that as defendant had himself applied
for the registration of tradename ‘Sanjha Chulha’, he now must
not be allowed to claim its generic nature as a defence. Counsel
for plaintiff read over the relevant observations to buttress the
arguments.
74. Before adverting to discuss the legality of the argument
above, it is requisite to observe that the plaintiff in relying on
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by Page 32 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:44:32
+0530
above case laws did not doubt a bit that the trade name indeed is
generic in nature.
75. During cross-examination, PW-1 Sh. Nand Kishore was
inquired about the origin of trade name, to which he claimed that
his wife ‘suggested’ to him to keep the name of ‘Sanjha Chulha’,
offered no further elaboration, behind the inspiration. On the
other hand, plaintiff doubted the defendant in being inspired by
an old tradition or practice of women making food through
common oven and/ or such practice being shown on TV series of
same name in 1990 for adopting the trade name ‘Sanjha Chulha’.
Defendant asserted of him having learnt of the practice of women
cooking through one common oven being in vogue from the time
of Guru Nanak Dev Ji where the village women would use a
common oven/ tandoor, which then was named as ‘Sanjha’
(common) ‘Chulha’ (oven/ tandoor). He detailed his inspiration
for adoption of above trade name was from a teleseries of same
name which was put on broadcast in 1990s on Doordarshan.
Though, plaintiff impugned the statements, plaintiff could not
bring any evidence to suggest the above statements were false. It
may be argued from plaintiff’s perspective that the defendant
shall bear the burden of above assertion. Which argument may be
valid. However, still the same test if applied to plaintiff, he must
also have to be subjected to such test of proof. In context of
above contrasting arguments, what is lost sight of is relevance of
argument for raising such doubt. Though the plaintiff negated the
assertion of defendant in finding inspiration of trade name from
an independent source, plaintiff carried the burden that defendant
adopted the trade name in an attempt to seek credit from
plaintiff’s already established trade name.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:44:36
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 33 of 51
76. Plaintiff doubted defendant’s adoption of trade name/
trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ being mala fide and relied upon
observations of Hon’ble Higher Courts in Sunil Mittal (supra)
(paras 15 to 18, 21, 22, 25, 33 and 36) ; Make My Trip (India)
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Make My Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC
OnLine Del 10638 (paras 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21 & 27) ; Evergreen
Sweet House Vs. JV Evergreen Sweets and Treats and ors., 2024
SCC OnLine Del 9005 (paras 4.2, 7.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.6, 10, 16, 18,
19, 21, 22, 23, 25 & 26); Wockhardt Limited Vs. Torrent
Pharmaceuticals Limited and anr., (2018) 18 SCC 346 (paras 8 &
9), to highlight the argument.
77. The argument above presents two pronged submissions.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s adoption of trademark
‘Sanjha Chulha’, in fact, was inspired by plaintiff’s trademark
and thus, constituted an act of infringement as well as passing-
off, as defendant with malicious and mischievous intention,
intended to capitalize on plaintiff’s reputation for garnering
profits. It also is claimed through the above argument that the
defendant, instead of having been inspired by the words ‘Sanjha
Chulha’ from a teleseries, has made a false statement of such
inspiration. The plaintiff was required to establish the substance
of both above statements. It is noted that except claiming that the
statement of adopting the trade name ‘Sanjha Chulha’ based on
inspiration from the teleseries and or the practice is a false claim,
plaintiff brought no counter material to establish the substance of
the arguments.
78. To prove that the adoption of trade name ‘Sanjha Chulha’
by defendant is an act of mala fide, plaintiff needed more support
than mere allegation. It is noted that plaintiff made no further
attempt on the above. As a consequence, plaintiff could not show
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
BHATIA Page 34 of 51
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:44:40
+0530
that the adoption of trade name by defendant was mala fide and/
or was to be viewed from the observations made in the law laid
in Sunil Mittal (supra), Make My Trip (supra), Evergreen Sweets
(supra) and Wockhardt Limited (supra), as had been argued.
79. The other element of arguments arise from plaintiff’s
claim of proprietary in the trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’, which
rests on the claim of registrations. Plaintiff stated that it held
registration in Class 29, 16 and 30 at the time of filing of the suit
against its applications No. 766554 (label, Class 29), 1040537
(label, Class 29), 1006350 (label, Class 16), 1040539 (label,
Class 16), 1006351 (label, Class 30). Invoking Anti-Dissection
Rule as laid under Section 17 of Trademarks Act, plaintiff’s
counsel asserted the entitlement to the entire trademark with
trade name ‘Sanjha Chulha’. Before adverting to discuss the
substance of the merit of above, it is useful, at this stage, to take
note of the provision as provided in the statutory framework of
Trademarks Act, 1999, which is excerpted as below:
“17. Effect of registration of parts of a mark.–(1) When a
trade mark consists of several matters, its registration shall
confer on the proprietor exclusive right to the use of the
trade mark taken as a whole.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
when a trade mark–
(a) contains any part–
(i) which is not the subject of a separate application by the
proprietor for registration as a trade mark; or15
(ii) which is not separately registered by the proprietor as a
trade mark; or
(b) contains any matter which is common to the trade or is
otherwise of a non-distinctive character,
the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right
in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade
mark so registered.”
80. The Anti-Dissection Rule as laid through Section 17 is
subjected to discussions during the observations made by
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 35 of 51
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:44:45
+0530
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Karanveer Singh Chharbra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, and are
noted for gaining insight. The observation in para 31.5 are
referenced as below:
“In the case of composite marks – those contained multiple
elements, such as words and logos – the overall impression
created by the mark is relevant. However, proprietors
cannot claim exclusive rights over individual components,
particularly, non-distinctive or descriptive elements. Courts
have often required disclaimers of such generic parts at the
time of registration. For instance, in Tungabhadra
Industries Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks24, the
registration of “Diamond T” in a diamond-shaped logo was
granted, but the word “Diamond” was required to be
disclaimed due to its non-distinctiveness.”
81. The expressions above, counters contrary arguments
presented by the plaintiff. While it is noted that the argument of
defence in light of Aktibolaget Volvo (supra), Kei Industries
Limited Vs. Raman Kwatra and anr, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
1459, and Automatic Electric (supra), may be limited, still the
argument does not absolve plaintiff to show existence of right to
claim against an unregistered part of trademark where such part
falls within the domain of Section 17(2) of Trademarks Act. In
essence, while the plaintiff undisputedly hold registration of label
and logo mark, it cannot claim exclusivity to trade name ‘Sanjha
Chulha’.
82. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff relied on the prior use doctrine to oust the claim of
defendant for trade name ‘word mark Sanjha Chulha’. The
assertion stems from the argument, pleading for remedy of
passing-off for which reliance is made on para 12, 13, 16, 18, 20,
21 and 27 of Make My Trip (supra), and on law laid in
Wockhardt Limited (supra) and Evergreen Sweets (supra).
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:44:49
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 36 of 51
83. In order to establish its proprietary rights on the
trademark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ plaintiff relied on its user claim since
1986. Counsel for plaintiff claimed right of retrospectivity in
terms of the user claim based on the application. However, her
argument could not find complete support from statutory
framework emerging from Section 23 of the Act. The mandate of
the provision though is clear, reliance still is placed on Worknest
Business Center LLP and anr. Vs. Worknests, 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 1678; Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Meyer
Health Care Pvt. Ltd and ors., (2011) 14 SCC 254 ; Meghraj
Biscuits Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
(2007) 3 SCC 780; Wockhardt Vs. Eden (supra).
84. The statute though details the claim on registered trade
mark from the date on which the application for such registration
is made, it still does support plaintiff’s arguments of
retrospectively establishing the right to trade mark from the date
of ‘user claim’, stated in application. In light of mandate of
Section 23 of the Act, now the document Ex. PW-1/3 colly (the
registration certificates) are read. The Ex. PW-1/3 (colly) showed
application No. 766554 under Class 29 as the earliest application
having been made on 29.08.1997. In terms of Section 23 of the
Act, plaintiff hence could show the available registration to its
label mark ‘Sanjha Chulha’ in Class 29, finding registered since
19.08.1997. It is noted that application No. 1040537, 106350,
1040539, 1006351 in Class 29, 30 and 16 respectively are all
subsequent to the above date of 19.08.1997 as are applied on
30.08.2001, 30.04.2001, 30.08.2001, 30.04.2001 respectively.
85. Intriguingly, in all the above applications, plaintiff
narrates different dates against the user claims. Plaintiff’s
trademark application No. 766554 shows registration date as
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by Page 37 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:44:53
+0530
19.08.1997, wherein plaintiff detailed the user claim since
31.01.1991; application No. 1040537 shows registration date as
30.08.2001 against user detail of 01.01.1987; application No.
1006350 with registration date of 30.04.2001 shows user detail
from 01.01.1986; application No. 1040539 against registration
date 30.08.2001 shows user detail as 01.01.1987; application No.
1006351 against registration date of 30.04.2001 shows user
details as 01.01.1986; application No. 1298323 against
registration date 26.07.2004 shows user detail as 01.01.1987.
Plaintiff has been inconsistent in claiming user date for which no
reason is detailed during the trial or course of the proceedings.
86. Before adverting to discussion on the effect of above, at
this stage, I find it pertinent to take note of the observations in
Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon’ble Supreme
Court noted below:
“3. At the heart of trademark law lies the foundational
principle that there must be no likelihood of confusion in
the mind of the average consumer. In cases involving
composite marks, it is not necessary that the impugned
mark replicate the original in its entirety; even partial
imitation may amount to infringement or passing off if it
evokes an association with the registered or prior-used
mark in the consumer’s mind.
4. However, the application of this principle is nuanced.
Courts are not expected to adopt a mechanical, side-by-side
comparison of the marks. Rather, judicial scrutiny is guided
by interpretative doctrines such as the anti-dissection rule
and the doctrine of the dominant mark, inter alia, other
well-established tests. Although these principles are
frequently applied in tandem, they do not always align
perfectly, and courts have differed in their application
depending on the specific facts and context of each case.”
87. The observation of Hon’ble High Court in Inder Raj
Sahni Vs. Neha (supra), at this stage, gains significance, the
relevant of which is excerpted as below:
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:44:58
+0530Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 38 of 51
“45. It is well settled that not all forms of use of a mark
amount to “use” in the legal sense contemplated under
trade mark law. To give rise to protectable rights, such use
must be of a kind that identifies the source of the goods and
serves to distinguish them from those of others– a concept
often referred to by courts as “use in the trade mark sense”.
The usage must manifest in the public domain and not
remain confined to internal documentation or preparatory
business activity. Trade mark rights do not arise in abstract
or as we say, the law does not confer proprietary rights in a
vacuum; rather, those rights accrue through tangible trading
and commercial activities that identify origin of products or
services to the consumers.3 It is through such market-
facing activities that a mark gains its distinctiveness,
functions as a source-identifier and acquires enforceable
proprietary character. Moreover, sporadic, incidental, or
isolated use, particularly when not directed toward the
market or divorced from actual commercial engagement,
cannot qualify as trade mark use in law.
46. The mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does
not, by itself, constitute use in the trade mark sense.
However, it is equally well recognised that many brands
derive their commercial identity through consistent and
public-facing use of their trading name, which, over time,
may acquire the same source-identifying function as a
conventional trade-mark. Courts have recognised that, in
appropriate cases, a trading name may itself function as a
badge of origin– capable of establishing goodwill and
proprietary association, particularly when supported by
corroborative evidence such as sales, advertising and public
recognition. This principle has been elucidated in
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah4, wherein the
Supreme Court held that a trading name used consistently
in the course of trade may acquire goodwill and be
protectable under the common law doctrine of passing off.”
88. While discussing the above, Hon’ble Delhi High Court
observed that even where plaintiff’s proprietorship stands
established by virtue of Statutory Registration under Section
28(1) of Trademarks Act, which confers an exclusive right to use
the mark in specified goods, the issue does not conclude only
with registrations.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:45:02
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 39 of 51
89. The law in respect of passing-off has been settled in
various cases, relevant being Make My Trip (supra); Wockhardt
Limited (supra); and Evergreen Sweets (supra).
Whether the plaintiff is prior user and prior adoptor of trademark
90. Undoubtedly, though, the first registration of label mark
in plaintiff’s favour is imparted on 19.08.1997. However, mere
grant of registration with effect from the said date would not be
sufficient to show prior user. The award of registration certificate
and use of trademark are different elements.
91. Out of all the 16 documents exhibited by plaintiff during
examination, except Ex. PW-1/1 (Teh Bazari slips) and Ex. PW-
1/2 (telephone bills), no other document shown is of the same
timeline (the veracity of Teh Bazari slips (Ex. PW-1/1) has
already been discussed in detail and discussion is not repeated for
the sake of brevity). The telephone bills which are filed from the
period 1994 are showing an inconsistent statement of facts. The
initial bills, though are in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar,
proprietor of Sanjha Chulha, do not find mention of the address
of A-31, Kailash Colony, against which the plaintiff claims to be
registered. PW-1, who was cross-examined in detail, could not
show the registration of partnership prior to 1997 despite
claiming the existence of partnership from the year 1990
onwards. The conduct of plaintiff in not presenting the registered
deed of partnership firm of 01.04.2001 has been discussed above
and is not reproduced. The plaintiff did not bring any document
for the relevant time except the registration certificates to claim
the user of the trademark. The documents relied heavily by
plaintiff such as Ex. PW-1/5 (undated article published in
Hindustan Times), Ex. PW-1/6 (Excellence Certificate for India
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally signed
Page 40 of 51
by NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:06 +0530
Hospitality and Tourism), Ex. PW-1/7 (undated certificate of
Chatkara), are insufficient. Plaintiff’s documents predominantly
are of period 2017-18 i.e. of the time when the contest between
the parties pertaining to the trademark started building up.
Plaintiff’s reliance to ITRs and acknowledgment for assessment
years is of same timeline commencing from 2018, 2019, 2020,
2021 up till 2023 i.e. the period before filing of the suit. It is
noted that plaintiff has not examined any independent witness to
reflect proper valuation in monetary terms behind the trade name
which could exclusively be shown associated with plaintiff. Such
lack of plaintiff’s efforts shows absence of link between plaintiff
and the trade name being exclusive to plaintiff, in other terms no
worthwhile evidence to show identification of such trade name
‘Sanjha Chulha’ exclusively to plaintiff is presented from above
documents relied as evidence. The source identification to
product is a pre-requisite for claiming a remedy of passing-off as
is laid in Inder Raj Sahni (supra) and the relevant is excerpted as
below:
“46. The mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does
not, by itself, constitute use in the trade mark sense.
However, it is equally well recognised that many brands
derive their commercial identity through consistent and
public-facing use of their trading name, which, over time,
may acquire the same source-identifying function as a
conventional trade-mark. Courts have recognised that, in
appropriate cases, a trading name may itself function as a
badge of origin– capable of establishing goodwill and
proprietary association, particularly when supported by
corroborative evidence such as sales, advertising and public
recognition. This principle has been elucidated in
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah4, wherein the
Supreme Court held that a trading name used consistently
in the course of trade may acquire goodwill and be
protectable under the common law doctrine of passing off.”
92. To buttress his claim upon composite mark as exclusive
user, plaintiff relying on the above law, presented two pronged
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
signed by
Page 41 of 51
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:45:10
+0530
arguments. At first, it has been argued that actual commercial use
of the trademark is not necessary for claiming infringement,
which argument is to be read in light of Section 23 of the Act. It
is observed that discussion above could show the date of
registration in plaintiff’s favour from 1997, whereas the use of
trademark is claimed from 1986, which user, plaintiff proposed to
establish on Teh Bazari slips and from above discussion, it is held
to be not worthy evidence for resting such claim. Plaintiff did not
present any pertinent material such as photographs, copies of
bills, ITRs, publicity, hoardings and/ or menu to reflect the
running of restaurant around the claimed time.
93. The other argument stems from the claim wherein
plaintiff seeks to expand against Anti-Dissection Rule in favour
of its composite trademark claiming the advantage of registration
granted for label and logo mark being applied to trade name. This
argument finds conflict with the statement of plaintiff wherein
separate applications for trademark registration of trade name
‘Sanjha Chulha’ were made over later. Plaintiff admits and rather
stresses for grant of trade name registration of its mark ‘Sanjha
Chulha’ in Class 30 w.e.f date 30.04.2001. Plaintiff admittedly,
made applications for grant of word mark registration ‘Sanjha
Chulha’ vide application 5239415, 5239416, 5239417, 4581878,
which all met with resistance from the defendant who filed the
objections.
94. Plaintiff’s other arguments rests on law laid in
Bodhisattva Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. Mayo Foundation for
Medical Education and Research, FAO (OS) (Comm) 73/2024,
DOD 28.07.2025 urging that the registration of trade name under
Class 42 must find extension to Class 43 which is for “hotel,
restaurant and food beverages, and food catering services namely
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally signed
Page 42 of 51
by NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:14 +0530
providing food and beverages for consumption on and off the
premises”, by seeking to draw the parity of analysis made in
Mayo Foundation (supra). However, the argument finds no
factual support.
95. Plaintiff’s claim of Class 42 registration w.e.f 26.07.2004
against application No. 1298323 is certified only on 15.12.2022
i.e. after the filing of the suit. The above fact is subsequent to the
filing of the suit and effect of subsequent fact/ registration is
deliberated by Hon’ble High Court in detail in Nakoda Food
Marketing & Ors. Vs. M/s Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited,
FAO (Comm) 92/2024, DOD 07.08.2025, wherein the
observations relevant is culled in para 37 as below:
“37. Nevertheless, the Raj Kumar Case has been
thoroughly discussed in Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd
v Ashish Bansal And Ors by this court, wherein one of us
(J. C Harishankar,) held that the legal position, as clarified
in the decision under consideration, is that once a
trademark is registered, no suit for infringement ordinarily
lies against its proprietor, as registration grants an exclusive
right to use the mark under Section 28(1) of the Act. Where
both parties possess registered marks, even if deceptively
similar, no injunction can ordinarily be sought by one
against the other. However, if the defendant‟s registration
is relied upon as a defence under Section 30(2)(e), the
plaintiff may challenge its validity. In such a case, the court
must assess whether the plea of invalidity is prima facie
tenable, frame an issue accordingly, adjourn the suit for
three months to enable the plaintiff to initiate rectification
proceedings, and stay the trial if such proceedings are
instituted within that period.
It goes on to say that:
“To our mind, if the reasoning in Raj Kumar Prasad is
accepted, it would be starkly contradictory to Sections
28(1), 28(3), 29(1) to (4) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks
Act. It would also enable an action for infringement to be
brought against the registered proprietor of a trademark, to
injunct the use, by such registered proprietor, of the
registered trademark, merely by incorporating, in the plaint,
a plea regarding invalidity of the defendant’s trademark. In
Digitally
other words, by a mere plea regarding the invalidity of the
defendant’s trademark, a plaintiff can completely divest a
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA
defendant of his right to exclusive use of his registered
Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:18trademark, conferred and sanctified by Sections 28(1),
+0530Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 43 of 51
28(3) and 30(2)(e). To our mind, this appears to be
impermissible.
(ii) Another serious aspect which appears not to have been
considered by the Division Bench while returning the
decision in Raj Kumar Prasad, is whether there can at all be
a case of infringement by a registered trademark. Notably,
there is no reference, in paras 15 to 18 of Raj Kumar
Prasad, of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The Division
Bench has only referred to Sections 28(1) and 28(3).
Before proceeding to Sections 28(1) and 28(3), which deal
with the availability of reliefs against infringement, it has
first to be seen whether any infringement can at all be said
to exist, where the defendant’s trademark is registered.
If the statute expressly envisages infringement only by an
unregistered trademark, the question of proceeding further
to the availability of relief against infringement does not
arise. With greatest respect, the Division Bench in Raj
Kumar Prasad has not addressed itself to the question of
whether there can at all be a case of infringement, where
the defendant’s trademark is registered.
(iii) To our mind, the answer to this question can only be in
the negative. There are no two ways about it. Sections
29(1) and 29(4) clearly envisage infringement only by a
person who is not the proprietor of a registered trademark
or the permissive user thereof. Section 29 is a self-
contained provision insofar as the circumstances in which
infringement can be said to exist is concerned. There is no
other provision in the Trade Marks Act which envisages
any circumstance which could amount to infringement. All
circumstances in which infringement could be said to exit
are contained in Section 29, and one cannot look outside
Section 29, while examining whether infringement has, or
has not, taken place.”
96. Further the effect of registration under a particular class is
then detailed in para 42 in the same judgment of Nakoda Food
(supra) and since it is beneficial to take note of the observations,
it is noted as below:
“42. In the present case, while the appellants have a valid
and subsisting registration for the SALONI mark in Class
30, it has no such registration in other classes. As such, no
statutory rights accrue to the appellants in those
unregistered classes. Further, the afore-extracted cases
settle the law in favour of the registered owner in cases of
infringement. Hence, apart from class 30, preparation of
Digitally
signed by
cereals (Namkeen) and seeds, appellants cannot enforce
NIRJA NIRJA
any statutory right available for infringement against the
BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
respondent.”
17:45:22
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 44 of 51
97. The discussion above does not leave any scope available
to plaintiff to claim retrospective advantage of registration under
this claim and/ or to claim advantage of tradename for Class 43
based on grant of registration under Class 42 of Trademarks.
98. While facing the challenges under the above claim,
defendant raised defence of bona fide concurrent user claiming
under Section 12 of Trademarks Act. The statutory provision is
excerpted for the benefit as below:
“12. Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc.
— In the case of honest concurrent use or of other special
circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make
it proper so to do, he may permit the registration by more
than one proprietor of the trade marks which are identical
or similar (whether any such trade mark is already
registered or not) in respect of the same or similar goods or
services, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any,
as the Registrar may think fit to impose.”
99. Defendant relied on the following judgments which are
noted as Goenka Institute of Education & Research Vs. Anjani
Kumar Goenka & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1691 ; Nandhini
Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation
Limited, (2018) 9 SCC 183; and T. Beena Vs. Seematti, FAO No.
34 of 2020 .
100. Plaintiff however, surprised the defendant during
arguments and proposed to restrict the scope of law detailed
above by relying on Kei Industries (supra), plaintiff asserted that
since the defence of bona fide concurrent user under Section 12
is to be used in a limited context as permitting the Registrar of
Trademarks for registering the trademark, which is identical/
similar to an existing trademark, it cannot be raised as a defence.
Similar reliance is placed on Abdul Rasul Narallah Virjee &
Jalalluddin Nurallah Virjee Vs. Regal Footwear, 2023 SCC
Digitally
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 45 of 51
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:26
+0530
OnLine Bom 10 wherein a similar sentiment is echoed. Plaintiff,
however, omitted to take note that both observations are
stemming from the purview of ‘statutory defence’. A statutory
defence is validated only against the assertion of a statutory right
i.e. pleading infringement. However, this bar of statute cannot
apply to a common law remedy of passing-off. The judgment of
Kei Industries (supra) hence prohibit the use of provisions of
Section 12 to ‘a charge of infringement’, contrasting to Section
28 of the Trademarks Act. There is no bar for claim of honest use
by a user who is prior as such right is validated by statutory
scheme of Trademarks Act, specifically under Section 30(3).
101. The facts brought by defendant on record and
relied by plaintiff during written submissions show a clear
reflection of existence of defendant in realm of restaurant
business if not prior then from the year 1998. The defendant
exhibited the possession certificate Ex. DW-1/4 dated 27.05.1996
issued by District Town Planner and certificates issued by ESIC
as Ex. DW-1/5 (It is noted that Ex. DW-1/5 is objected to mode,
however, the objection was removed as complete document was
filed against supply of copy to the plaintiff during its tendering).
Defendant relied on certain reviews of its services dated
27.04.1998, 13.04.1998, 01.02.1999, by customers which were
collectively Ex. DW-1/6. All the documents above were called in
question during arguments by plaintiff on the mode of proof. The
plaintiff relying on Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC
343, doubted the veracity and claimed that the documents were
not duly proved. Though, it is settled law that mere tendering the
document would not tantamount to its proof, it is taken note that
the plaintiff was duty bound to support the objection raised qua
the mode. During final arguments, plaintiff though averred that
Digitally
signed by
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 46 of 51
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:29
+0530
defendant did not care to bring the persons voicing the reviews
against Ex. DW-1/6 nor brought the concerned officials, ignored
absence of worthwhile cross-examination to secure the loose
ends favourably.
102. The possession certificate is a document in public
domain and similar is the status of certificate issued by
institutions such as ESIC. The documents are pertaining to
existence of restaurant services run by defendant. For the limited
purpose, the contents of the documents support defendant in
preponderance. Additionally, the defendant in the written
statement has relied heavily on his claim of expansion of
restaurant services after inception by way of humble beginning in
Faridabad at Shop No. 55, Huda Market. Defendant echoed the
same statement in examination-in-chief and there is an abysmal
cross-examination on the above claim. As per plaintiff,
defendant’s visibility on food deliveries channels was evident, for
which plaintiff sued defendant Nos. 4 to 6, the food delivery
channels catering services to defendant in reaching out public
domain. Plaintiff could not dispute the conveyance deed
favouring defendant dated 02.05.2012 (Ex. DW-1/9), sale deed
dated 13.11.2000 in favour of wife and sister-in-law of DW-1 as
Ex. DW-1/10 (this document was initially marked a Mark A and
was de-exhibited as DW-1/10, however, it is noted that the
questions on above documents were put to the witness by
plaintiff’s counsel which tantamounts to the reliance.) It is noted
hence, that the cross-examination is inadequate to traverse the
existence of above material.
103. The defendant supported its existence in restaurant
services through document Ex. DW-1/11, the certificate issued by
Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India in the name of
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
Page 47 of 51
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA
Date:
BHATIA
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:45:33
+0530
DW-1 partnership firm ‘Sanjha Chulha’ in respective years of
2000-2003. Defendant relied on lease deed dated 19.08.2009, Ex.
DW-1/3 in names of defendants No. 2 and 3 as well as specimen
of invoice of defendant Ex. DW-1/15, the GST certificates from
the year 2017-18 till 2021-22 as Ex. DW-1/16 collectively,
restaurant menu card in the year 2917-18 as Ex. DW-1/17A. The
firm’s registration certificate Ex. DW-1/20 which all documents,
by far, surpassed the material showing the popularity of plaintiff
in being identified as ‘The Sanjha Chulha’ in Delhi/ NCR in
business around the same timeline. The aforementioned is further
strengthened by comparison of the sales for the same timeline.
The comparison is excerpted in below manner through a
tabulated chart:
S. No. Financial Year Defendant Turnover (in Plaintiff Sales (in Rs.)
Rs.)
1. 2017-2018 4,61,44,653 88,82,640
2. 2018-2019 4,71,52,271 1,38,82,499
3. 2019-2020 5,50,84,178 2,55,34,304
4. 2020-2021 3,74,43,734 2,16,74,258
5. 2021-2022 5,55,80,940 2,65,69,751
104. Apparently, for the defendant outperformed the
plaintiff in terms of sale and profit. While the initial figures of
sale under discussion in the ad interim order of Ld. Predecessor
as well as during the course of arguments before the Hon’ble
High Court were modified in Replication, plaintiff made no
attempt to prove the actual sale and profit, specially in view of
confusion created by subsequent change of statement by way of
modification of figures. Document Ex. PW-1/4, ITRs, were not
supported by any certificate of Chartered Accountant. Plaintiff
did not present author of accounts despite relying itself on the
law in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and stressing on the
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date: Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
2026.04.11
Page 48 of 51
17:45:36
+0530
need of author’s cross-examination. The above raised doubts to
the claim of plaintiff alleging the defendant being swayed by the
popularity of plaintiff’s trademark and thus, engaging in passing-
off being established. Plaintiff’s documents have already been
doubted regarding their evidentiary value and the observation in
para 44 is read during arguments by defendant’s counsel despite
which no rebuttal from the subsequent facts is offered.
105. In view of the discussion above, as plaintiff could not
establish either the infringement of its trade name, trademark or
establish any passing-off, the application of law laid in Midas
Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia, 2004 (73) DRJ
647 is not shown attracted. This Court finds no requirement to
delve into the defence of acquiescence which is raised by
defendant under Section 33 of Trademarks Act nor finds it useful
to deal with the controversy of plaintiff’s seeking damages in
place of the rendition of accounts. With observations above, the
plaintiff could not show compliance to the principles of
injunction for declaration of right in ‘rem’, as detailed in Pernod
Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in following words:
“36.1. As a general rule, a proprietor whose statutory or
common law rights are infringed is entitled to seek an
injunction to restrain further unlawful use. However, this
remedy is not absolute. The considerations governing the
grant of injunctions in trademark infringement actions
broadly apply to passing off claims as well. That said, a
fundamental distinction remains: while a registered
proprietor may, upon proving infringement, seek to restrain
all use of the infringing mark, a passing off action does not
by itself confer an exclusive right. In appropriate cases, the
court may mould relief in passing off so as to permit
continued use by the defendant, provided it does not result
in misrepresentation or deception.
36.2. The grant of injunction – whether for infringement or
passing off – is ultimately governed by equitable principles
Digitally
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
and is subject to the general framework applicable to
signed byBHATIA Date:
proprietary rights. Where actual infringement is
2026.04.11
17:45:40
+0530
established, that alone may justify injunctive relief; aSanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 49 of 51
plaintiff is not expected to wait for further acts of defiance.
As judicially observed, “the life of a trademark depends
upon the promptitude with which it is vindicated.”
36.3. The principles laid down in American Cyanamid Co.
v. Ethicon Ltd.30 continue to guide the Courts while
determining interim injunction applications in trademark
cases. The following criteria are generally applied:
(i) Serious question to be tried/triable issue: The plaintiff
must show a genuine and substantial question fit for trial. It
is not necessary to establish a likelihood of success at this
stage, but the claim must be more than frivolous, vexatious
or speculative.
(ii) Likelihood of confusion/deception: Although a detailed
analysis of merits is not warranted at the interlocutory
stage, courts may assess the prima facie strength of the case
and the probability of consumer confusion or deception.
Where the likelihood of confusion is weak or speculative,
interim relief may be declined at the threshold.
(iii) Balance of convenience: The court must weigh the
inconvenience or harm that may result to either party from
the grant or refusal of injunction. If the refusal would likely
result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill or
mislead consumers, the balance of convenience may favor
granting the injunction.
(iv) Irreparable harm: Where the use of the impugned mark
by the defendant may lead to dilution of the plaintiff’s
brand identity, loss of consumer goodwill, or deception of
the public – harms which are inherently difficult to quantify
– the remedy of damages may be inadequate. In such cases,
irreparable harm is presumed.
(v) Public interest: In matters involving public health,
safety, or widely consumed goods, courts may consider
whether the public interest warrants injunctive relief to
prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace.
36.4. In conclusion, the grant of an interim injunction in
trademark matters requires the court to consider multiple
interrelated factors: prima facie case, likelihood of
confusion, relative merits of the parties’ claims, balance of
convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and the public
interest. These considerations operate cumulatively, and the
absence of any one of these may be sufficient to decline
interim relief.”
106. Having regard to above, no further observations
are needed. The suit is dismissed with no orders to cost.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 50 of 51
17:45:43
+0530
107. File be consigned to Record Room after
completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:49
+0530
Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia)
today on 11th April, 2026 District Judge
(Comm. Court) (Digital-07)
South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 51 of 51
[ad_1]
Source link
