The court underscored that registered trademarks must be protected against confusingly similar uses, emphasizing jurisdiction based on e-commerce presence.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

Facts, and the impugned order

1. In CS (Comm) 410/2025,[ Rakesh Kumar Sharma v Suman Devi and Anr. , referred to, hereinafter, as “the suit”], pending before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), [“the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter] and from which this appeal emanates, the respondent is the plaintiff and the appellants are the defendants.

2. The appellants assail order dated 2 June 2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court in an application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,["CPC” hereinafter].

3. The suit was instituted by the respondent alleging infringement, by the appellants, of the registered trade mark LABTRONICS of the respondent. The respondent contended that he had coined and adopted the trade mark LABTRONICS in 2001 and was using the mark for scientific and laboratory instruments such as Spectrophotometers, Automatic Potentiometric Titrator, Tablets Disintegration Test Apparatus, Visual colorometer etc.

4. The respondent is also in possession of a valid and subsisting registration in the word mark LABTRONICS for scientific and laboratory instruments such as spectrophotometers, digital flame photometers, titrimeters, polarimeters, microprocessor voltmeters, hydrometers, barometers and microscopes, in Class 9, w.e.f. 5 March 2010, being when the respondent applied for registration. Though there is an averment, in the appeal, that the respondent is not in possession of any trade mark registration, this averment is obviously incorrect as the aforesaid registration of the word mark LABTRONICS in Class 9 is valid and subsisting as on date.

5. The respondent had also obtained a registration for the device mark which expired due to efflux of time and was not renewed. This appears to have conveyed an impression to the appellants that the respondent is not in possession of any valid and subsisting registered trade mark.

6. As we have noted, though the registration of the device mark is no longer in existence, as it was not renewed, the respondent continues to be a proprietor of the registered word mark LABTRONICS in Class 9 for the goods noted supra.

7. The appellants are using the mark LABTRON INSTRUMENTS for scientific and laboratory instruments.

8. It is not in dispute that Appellant 2 was a former employee of the respondent and that, after leaving the service of the respondent, the appellants have commenced using of the mark LABTRON INSTRUMENTS for scientific and laboratory instruments. As such, the appellants’ mark LABTRON INSTRUMENTS is being used for the same goods in respect of which the word mark LABTRONICS stands registered in the respondent’s favour in Class 9.

9. It was in these circumstances that the respondent instituted CS (Comm) 410/2025 before the learned Commercial Court alleging infringement, by the appellants, of the respondent’s registered trade mark and passing off, by the appellants, of its goods as those of the respondent.

10. By order dated 2 June 2025, the learned Commercial Court has found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. In view thereof, the learned Commercial Court has restrained the appellants from using the mark LABTRON or any mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the respondent’s registered word mark LABTRONICS for scientific and laboratory instruments. The learned Commercial Court also appointed local commissioners to visit the premises of the appellants and to seize and inventorise goods found in the premises of the appellants which bore the infringing mark.

11. The reasoning of the learned Comm