SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
Ramnish Verma – Appellant
Versus
The Haddad Apparel Group Ltd. – Respondent
Interim Application No. 752 of 2024, Commercial IP Suit No. 247 of 2023
Decided On : 07-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Virag Tulzapurkar, Hiren Kamod, Mahesh Mahadgut, Shildendra Thathe, Kaivalya Shetye, Neha Joglekar Prem Khullar
For the Respondents: Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Hemlata Marathe, Vaibhav Khanna, Jehangir Gulabbhai, Bilimoria, Davawala

The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 11, 28, and 29 - Infringement of trademark and passing off - Plaintiff's 'ROOKIES' mark established prior use since 2008; Defendant's 'ROOKIE' mark registered in 2014 but not demonstrated as used in India until 2019 - Likelihood of confusion established between the marks and related goods, justifying injunctive relief against Defendant. (Paras 22-64)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, owners of the trademark 'ROOKIES' since 2008, initiated action against Defendants for launching a similar store named 'ROOKIE USA' in 2019, prompting a cease and desist notice. The Plaintiff secured trademark registrations in Class 25 & 35, while the Defendants had registrations in Class 18 & 35. (Paras 1-10)

Findings of Court:
The court found the Defendant's registration to be prima facie illegal due to non-use and potential bad faith, supporting the Plaintiff’s claims of prior use and goodwill substantially since 2008. The Defendant’s actions would likely cause irreparable harm and confusion regarding the trademark. (Paras 36-49)

Issues: 1) Whether the Plaintiffs' goods and the Defendants' services are similar, causing confusion under Section 29; 2) Whether there is an infringement of the Plaintiffs' registered mark and passing off of goods/services. (Paras 22, 42-44)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the priority of prior user rights over registered marks when the later mark is not in use, underscoring the connection between complementary goods (clothing and accessories) in varying classes that could cause consumer confusion. The formulation of the marks also indicated dishonest adoption by the Defendants. (Paras 27-32, 62-64)

Result: Interim injunction granted in favor of the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, restraining them from using the mark 'ROOKIE' or any similar mark pending final disposal of the suit.

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs' trademark and business details (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. defendants' actions and trademark registrations (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. plaintiffs' arguments on trademark protection (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. defendants' counterarguments on trademark registration (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court's observations on trademark usage (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. court's findings on infringement and confusion (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. legal standards for trademarks and similarity (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. evidence supporting plaintiffs' claims (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
9. assessment of market confusion and similarities (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
10. defendants' arguments and the court's evaluation (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
11. court's assessment of good faith and intentions (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
12. court's decision on interim relief (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
13. court's conclusions on trademark infringement (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
14. final order and stay on enforcement (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

JUDGMENT :

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

1. This is an action for infringement of trade mark and passing o The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Plaintiff No.1 is the registered proprietor of trade mark “ROOKIES” and various “ROOKIES” formative trade marks of which the word “ROOKIES” is the leading and essential features. The registered domain name i.e. “https://rookiesjeans.com” also contains the trademark.

2. The Plaintiff No.1 is one of the shareholder and director of Plaintiff No.2 and Plaintiff No. 2 is the permitted user of trade mark “ROOKIES”. The Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are engaged in the business of designing, importing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of readymade garments and all kinds of clothing collection, footwear and ancillary products for men, women and children and are also engaged in the business of retailing the said goods through their exclusive brand outlets as well as multi brand stores under the name and style “ROOKIES” / “ROOKIES Jeans”. The Plaintiffs also have online presence on their own as well as third party e-commerce websites.

3. In the year 2008, the Plaintiff No.1 adopted the word “ROOKIES” as its trade mark. The domain name was registered on 1st November, 2008. The Plaintiff No.1 applied for and secured registration of the trade mark “ROOKIES” and ROOKIES formative trademarks under Class 25 and subsequently also secured registration under Class 35, the relevant details are set out in paragraph 6(i) of the plaint. The earliest registration of the mark “ROOKIES” in class 25 was secured on 22nd December 2008 with user claim of 3rd November 2008. The registration in Class 35 was obtained on 23rd May 2019 with user claim of 3rd November 2008.

4. The Plaintiffs have also secured registration in Class 25 and Class 35 in Nepal, in Class 25 in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the year 2022-2023. In so far as country of Hong Kong is concerned, in the year 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an application for registration of the mark “ROOKIES JEANS CO/ROOKIES JEANS” in Class 25 and 35, which was opposed by the Defendant No. 1 vide notice of opposition dated 25th January 2019 pursuant to which the Plaintiff did not contest the Hong Kong opposition.

5. The plaint sets out the wide array of goods marketed under the trademark “ROOKIES” as well as locations at which the multi-brand stores and exclusive brand outlets of Plaintiffs are located. It is stated that the Plaintiffs, as retailer launched their flagship store in Phoenix Mall in Kurla which led to launching of exclusive brand outlets in major cities like Raipur, Patna and Gujarat in India. In order to demonstrate the goodwill and reputation, the sales figures and promotional expenses duly certified by the Chartered Accountant are placed on record. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs brand is endorsed by celebrities.

6. It is submitted that the Defendant No.3 is the Director of Defendant No.2 and they are the exclusive franchisee of Defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top