JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against an interlocutory order dated 09.03.2026, passed by the Commercial Court/6th Additional District Judge, Rajkot, granting interim injunction by allowing Exhibit 5 in a Trademark Suit, viz. Commercial Trademark Suit No. 2 of 2025.

3. From a perusal of the judgment impugned, it is noteworthy that the plaintiff, claiming to be an established business of jewellery products and various jewellery items, articles of imitation jewellery, jewellery with ornamental stones, etc., has instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellants/defendants therein for passing off and infringement of trademark and damages. During the pendency of the suit, temporary injunction has been sought restraining the defendant and his assignees/representatives, etc., from using the trademarks "Aditya Jewellers” “Aditya Jewels”, “Adityam Jewels” and "Aditya Fashion".

4. The contention of the plaintiff, as noted in the judgment impugned, is that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm in the name of Aditya Jewellers, having its business place at Rajkot, in the State of Gujarat. The plaintiff is the oldest and leading jewellers in India and has adopted the trademarks "Aditya", "Aditya Jwelers", and "Aditya Jewellers", since 28.03.2007 and has also applied for registration of the trademark "Aditya Jewellers" under Application No. 6359619, dated 21.03.2024, which is pending before the competent Registrar.

5. Various assertions have been made in the plaint about the plaintiff being the first jeweller in Rajkot to obtain BIS Hallmark licence for gold jewellery in the year 2011, and throughout long, continuous, and extensive use of the trademark "Aditya Jewellers", by advertisement and publicity, the plaintiff has acquired significant goodwill and distinctiveness, and is exclusively associated with the trademark "Aditya Jewellers". The further contention is that the plaintiff has bona fide and honestly adopted the said trademark in the year 2007, and the goods being sold by the plaintiff under the said trademark are known for their superior quality, resulting in large sales volumes and substantial revenue generation.

6. The plaintiff has invested considerable amounts in marketing, promotion and advertisement, etc. and it is claimed that by virtue of such prior and extensive use, coupled with substantial sales, the trademarks "Aditya", "Aditya Jwelers" and "Aditya Jewellers", have acquired equitable goodwill and reputation, and became a well-known mark within the meaning of Section 2(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, having also acquired secondary meaning.

7. It is further submitted that the plaintiff recently came to know of various trademark applications filed by the defendants for identical marks or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark, which include "Aditya Jewellers", "AdityaJewels", "Adityam Jewels", "Aditya Fashion" and other variations thereof. It is contended that the applications of the defendants for use of the aforesaid mark is in respect of identical goods falling in Class 14. The contention, thus, is that the defendants have adopted and used the impugned mark dishonestly and with mala fide intention to ride over the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, and cause confusion in the market.

8. The plaintiff has, thus, heavily pressed its case on one factor of being original and prior adopter and user of the mark "Aditya", "Aditya Jwelers", and "Aditya Jewellers".

9. However, a perusal of the order impugned indicates that the defendants in their written statement have come out with the categorical assertions that the present suit is false, frivolous, and vexatious, and is not maintainable either in law or facts. The plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the proceedings for passing off or infringement.

10. The defendants are the prior, continuous and bona users of t