2026 Supreme(Raj) 375

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
M/s. Dhanvarsha Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd., Through Director Vinod Mittal – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill), Through Partner/Manager/Authorized Signatory – Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 283 of 2016
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Mere registration of a trade mark creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, not conclusive proof of exclusive rights. In infringement suits, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish actual prior use, commercial reputation, and locus standi, which cannot be discharged without cogent documentary evidence.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - Additional evidence - Appellate court's discretion to permit additional evidence is an exception, not a rule - Evidence not discoverable earlier or required for pronouncing judgment must meet strict criteria - Failure to act with due diligence at trial stage precludes production of evidence at appellate stage. (Paras 3.2, 15)

(B) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 31 - Presumption of validity - Registration confers prima facie evidence of validity, not conclusive proof - Presumption is rebuttable - Party asserting rights must establish continuous and prior use through cogent evidence such as invoices and account books to sustain claim of infringement or passing off. (Paras 24, 37, 38)

(C) Law of Evidence - Partnership firm - Locus standi - Essential to produce foundational documents like deed of partnership to prove constitution of firm and authority of representative to institute and depose in legal proceedings - Absence of such evidence renders assertions regarding standing unsustainable. (Para 36)

(D) Appellate Jurisdiction - Duty to provide reasoned findings - Court must conduct detailed analysis of competing marks and trade dress to establish deceptive similarity - Cursory conclusions without evaluating essential features or likelihood of confusion are legally vulnerable. (Para 40)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a decree of permanent injunction granted in a suit regarding alleged trade mark infringement and passing off. The appellant contested the findings, arguing that the respondent had failed to prove the constitution of its firm, ownership of the mark, and continuous prior usage. The lower court had relied on the registration of the mark to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant-appellant despite a lack of foundational documentary evidence.

Findings of Court:
The trial court erred by treating registration as conclusive proof of ownership and by failing to address the respondent's lack of standing and absence of documentary evidence proving continuous commercial use. The appellate court identified a failure to apply the correct evidentiary standards regarding the shifting of burden and the assessment of deceptive similarity.

Issues: Whether the respondent possessed the locus standi to institute the suit without foundational evidence of its constitution, and whether the trial court’s findings on infringement and passing off were supported by sufficient proof of prior use and reasoned comparative analysis of the competing marks.

Ratio Decidendi: Registration of a trade mark creates a rebuttable presumption that does not exempt the holder from proving prior and continuous actual usage. A claimant must substantiate the firm's legal status and provide cogent evidence of market activity and reputation to prevail. Findings on deceptive similarity must be based on a detailed evaluation of features, not mere registration status.

Result: Appeal allowed; impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded for de novo adjudication.

Table of Content
1. admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage is a matter of judicial discretion under order xli rule 27 cpc. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. historical timeline, status of litigation, and interim proceedings regarding trademark infringement. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. burden of proof requirements for establishing locus standi, prior use, and actual commercial use of a trademark. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. reliance on sections 28 and 31 of the trade marks act for exclusive ownership and statutory presumption of validity. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
5. the necessity of foundational evidence (partnership deeds) and reasoned analysis of deceptive similarity in trademark cases. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. remand of matter for de novo adjudication due to the trial court's failure to base findings on cogent, primary evidence. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

In S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 01/2023

1. The instant application has been moved under the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for placing additional documents on record, by the non-appellant/applicant.

2. In compliance with the directions laid down in the ratio of Iqbal Ahmed (Dead) through LRs vs. Abdul Shukoor reported in 2025 INSC 1027, and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the application has been taken up for consideration and is being decided prior to entering into the merits of the case.

3. Upon a perusal of the material available on record and having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respective parties, this Court is not inclined to allow the said application, and permit placing of additional documents on record, at this stage, for the reasons noted ad infra:

3.1 That the instant application has been moved in the year 2023 and the instant appeal was admitted way back in the year 2016.

3.2 That Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code establishes that parties cannot introduce new evidence in an appellate court as a matter of right; and it is only upon the discretion of the Court to accept additional oral or documentary evidence or not. The exceptions to this rule are that the lower Court has arbitrarily refused to take the documents, as pleaded, to be taken on record; that the evidence was not discoverable earlier; that the appellate Court itself requires the evidence, to enable to pronounce the judgment, or for "any other substantial cause".

3.3 That as per the ratio encapsulated in the judgment of Uttaradi Mutt vs. Raghavendra Swamy Mutt reported in (2018) 10 SCC 484, the prayer in application and the reasons stated in the memo therein, do not fall under the ambit of ‘special cases’ whereby the said plea could be considered.

4. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed in limine.

In S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 283/2016:

5. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the defendant-appellant assailing the judgment and decree dated 12.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Bharatpur in Civil Suit No. 09/2009, whereby and whereunder the suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-plaintiff under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1999’) has been decreed against the defendant.

6. It is undisputed fact on record that the first appeal has been admitted for hearing and during the course of hearing, execution and implementation of the impugned final judgment and order dated 12.05.2016 has been stayed vide order dated 05.10.2016; and that the respondent-plaintiff moved an application dated 25.08.2020 seeking vacation of the stay order dated 05.10.2016, stating inter alia, that in that year itself, the appellant has started ‘red color’ new packaging for its brand of edible mustard oil, ju

Click Here to Read the rest of this document