The court confirmed trademark infringement, imposing strict penalties for contempt due to ongoing violations during injunction, requiring a rebranding to 'RMC' or 'RAAVI MASALA COMPANY'.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

I.A. 16059/2021 (seeking intervention)

1. This is an application filed on behalf of Mr. Nikhil Jain, who claims to be the legal heir and successor of Late Sh. D.K. Jain, seeking intervention in the present suit.

2. None has appeared in the present application and pressed the same. Accordingly, I.A.16059/2021 is dismissed as not pressed.

3. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the present application.

I.As. 13031/2021 (u/O XXXIX Rule 2A CPC), 4587/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 2A CPC), 8461/2022, 8859/2022, 8969/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)

4. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Victoria Foods Private Limited against Defendant No.1-Rajdhani Masala Co., which is the sole proprietary concern of Mrs. Asha Rani Kohli. The said sole proprietor is around 80 years of age and the business of the said sole proprietary concern is being run by her two sons-Mr. Pawan Kohli, as also, Defendant No.2 - M/s. New Rajdhani Masala, through its proprietor, Mr. Ravi Kohli. Mr. Pawan Kohli and Mr. Ravi Kohli (hereinafter, `Defendants') are brothers.

5. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of spices and other food products. It is stated to be a reputed name in the food industry and is also one of India's largest producers and exporters of food products such as cereals, grains, basmati rice, atta, spices, etc. In the present case, the Plaintiff has sought protection of its registered trademark `RAJDHANI' along with the logo thereof. The Plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of various trademarks for the mark `RAJDHANI' in Classes 29, 20, 31, 32, adopted in the year 1966, as also, various international registrations for the said mark.

6. The Plaintiff had moved an application being I.A.3527/2021 seeking interim injunction, in the present case. Vide a detailed judgment dated 1st September, 2021, the application was disposed of granting interim relief to the Plaintiff. The findings of the Court in the said judgment dated 1st September, 2021, are set out below:

"4. The following are the findings of the Court:

a) The mark `RAJDHANI' has been used since 1966 and the Plaintiff-company was founded in 1983.

b) The Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 31st March, 2009, was discussed. The Plaintiff is held to be the prior user of the mark.

c) There is no evidence on record to show that the Defendant has ever used any of its products under the mark `RAJDHANI', though the Defendant has been in business since the 1960s.

d) The only solitary document relied upon by the Defendants, is the legal notice and reply dated 18th July, 2008 and 9th August, 2008, stated to have been exchanged between the sister concern of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, where a claim is made that the trademark has been used since 1965."

7. Vide the above judgment dated 28th April, 2022, the ld. Single Judge had also negated the plea of prior user and concurrent user. Thus, an interim injunction was granted, in the following terms:

""36. It is also a matter of fact that the plaintiff is the registered owner of the said trademarks details of which are as follows:

Prima facie the plaintiff is the first in the market with the trademark `Rajdhani'. The plaintiff