Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 818
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J
JANGEER SINGH TRADING AS JANGEER SINGH KABULSHAH AGRICULTURE WORKS – Appellant
Versus
YOGESH JANGID TRADING AS JANGID AGRO ENGINEERING & ANR. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-598/2022
Registered proprietors of similar trademarks cannot claim infringement, but passing off can be evaluated based on goodwill and bona fide use under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Interim injunction sought against infringement and passing off of trademark - Plaintiff claims prior use and goodwill in ‘JANGEER’ since 1984, whereas defendant claims bona fide use of ‘JANGID’ since 1980 - Court finds both parties are registered proprietors of similar marks, therefore, prima facie no case for infringement - However, passing off is considered - Court emphasizes bona fide use under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interim arrangement directs defendant not to use ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’ during suit pendency. (Paras 53-56)
(B) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 35 - Protection for bona fide use of name in business - Court affirms that common names cannot be monopolized as trademarks. (Paras 37-41)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a sole proprietorship, has been using the trademark ‘JANGEER’ since 1984 and claims substantial sales turnover. Defendant claims use of ‘JANGID’ since 1980 and has obtained registrations for similar marks. Court examines claims of both parties regarding prior use and goodwill.
Findings of Court:
The defendant established bona fide use of the mark ‘JANGID’ based on historical business operations.
Issues: Determination of trademark infringement versus passing off, and the applicability of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that both parties have registered marks, thus prima facie, infringement cannot be claimed; however, passing off must be evaluated based on goodwill and reputation.
Result: Interim injunction granted; defendant restrained from using ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’ during suit.
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
I.A. 13953/2022 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC )
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking grant of interim injunction against the defendant.
2. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringement and passing off the plaintiff’s trademark, rendition of accounts, damages and other ancillary reliefs.
Proceedings in the suit
3. Summons in the suit and notice in the application was issued on 31st August, 2022. However, no ad interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff.
4. In the Order dated 27th September, 2022, the statement of the defendant’s counsel was recorded to the effect that the defendant is neither using nor intending to use the mark 'JANGEER/JANGIR'.
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various dates and pleadings were completed in the suit as well as in the present application. The application was heard on 9th January, 2025, 20th January 2025, 18th February, 2025 and 24th February, 2025, when the judgment was reserved.
Case set up in the plaint
6. The plaintiff is a sole proprietorship firm of Mr. Jangeer Singh. The plaintiff is engaged inter alia in the business of marketing, manufacturing and selling agricultural implements.
7. The plaintiff honestly conceived and adopted the trademark ‘JANGEER’ on 1st January, 1984 and since then, the plaintiff has been using the said trademark continuously.
8. The plaintiff also maintains a website with the domain name ‘www.jangeer.com’ which gives details about the plaintiff’s products. The plaintiff’s products sold under the aforesaid trade mark are also available on leading third party e-commerce portals such as ‘www.tradeindia.com’, ‘www.indiamart.com’, ‘www.exportersindia.com’, and the like.
9. The plaintiff has obtained a registration for the device mark ‘JANGEER’ in class 7. The aforesaid registration is w.e.f. 13th September, 2013 with a user claim of 1st January, 1984. The plaintiff’s application for registration for the mark ‘JANGEER’ in class 35 is pending.
10. The plaintiff has given his sales turnover as well as promotional expenses from the financial year 2004-2005 till the financial year 2021-22 in paragraph 4 of the plaint. The sales turnover for the financial year 2021-22 was to the tune of ₹ 32,73,42,328 and the promotional expenses were to the tune of ₹ 13,02,909.
11. It is stated that the defendant also deals in the business of manufacturing and trading of identical goods as the plaintiff, i.e. agricultural implements under the trademark ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’.
12. The defendant has obtained registrations of device marks bearing the name ‘JANGID’ in classes 7 and 35. The defendant has also applied for various other registrations in classes 7 and 35 for the word/device mark ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’ which are pending or have been refused.
13. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff.
Case set up by the defendant in the Written Statement
14. The defendant’s family adopted their surname, ‘JANGID’ as a mark in 1980 and since then they have been using the aforesaid mark honestly and in a continuous manner. The defendant’s father, Sh. Bhomaram Jangid started using the Hindi and English versions of his surname ‘JANGID’ with respect to his business concern ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’, dealing in agricultural implements.
15. In support of its user of the aforesaid mark, the defendant has placed on record documents such as Small-Scale Industrial (SSI) Unit certificates, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification, Declaration Form under Central Sales Tax, demand notes and electricity bills issued in the name of ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’.
16. In the year 2011, the defendant set up his business in the name of ‘Jangid Agro Engineering’. Documents in support thereof have been filed along with the written statement.
17. The defendant
 | |||
 |
 |
