$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10.01.2025 + FAO (COMM) 5/2025 KIRAN SEHGAL PROP. M/S BALAJI TRADING COMPANY AND OTHERS .....Appellants Through: Mr.Anshuman Gargesh, Adv.

versus VEENA AGGARWAL PROP. POWER ELECTRO CONTROLS .....Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

CM APPL. 1253-54/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

FAO (COMM) 5/2025 & CM APPL. 1252/2025

3. This appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), Court- 08, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in CS (Comm.) 5100/2021, titled Veena Aggarwal v. M/s Balaji Trading Company and Ors., whereby an interim order was issued restraining the appellants herein from manufacturing, marketing, selling or otherwise dealing with the products under the trademark/label ‘POWERMEN DLX’ and ‘POWERMEN MAXX’, or any other similar deceptive trademark, label etc., till the final disposal of the Suit.

Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 5/2025 Page 1 of 10 Digitally Signed

4. The respondent had filed the above Suit, claiming therein that the respondent is the owner of the trademark ‘POWERMAN’, which has been used for manufacturing, selling, marketing and distribution of electrical goods and accessories since April 2000. The firm had been established by the deceased husband of the respondent on 01.04.2000. The trademark –‘Powerman’ is used by the respondent for various goods, including rotary switches, relays, rocker switches, terminal strips, volt and AM Meters, Inverters and UPS kits, and it has also been registered since 13.02.2008 as a label mark. The appellant nos.1 and 2 were the exclusive distributors of the respondent’s firm for more than 10 years, till September 2021, while the appellant no.3 is the son of the appellant nos.1 and 2.

5. The respondent asserted that in August 2021, it came to the knowledge of the respondent that the appellant no.2 had applied for the registration of a similar trademark, ‘POWERMEN DLX’, and was also selling goods under the said trademark. The respondent served a notice dated 29.09.2021 upon the appellants. Instead of withdrawing the trademark, the appellant no.3 applied for the registration of the trademark ‘POWERMEN MAXX’. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the above suit.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in failing to appreciate that the two marks, that is, one of the respondent and the other of the appellants, are distinct. He submits that while the mark of the respondent is ‘POWERMAN’ (emphasis supplied), the mark of the appellants is ‘POWERMEN’

Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 5/2025 Page 2 of 10 Digitally Signed (emphasis supplied). He further submits that the marks of the appellants are registered and, therefore, no injunction could have been granted against the appellants from using the said mark. He further submits that the respondent owes a substantial sum of money to the appellants, for which the appellants had filed a Suit for recovery against the respondent. He submits that the Suit in question has been filed by the respondent only in retaliation to the Suit filed by the appellants. He further submits that many other parties are also using the impugned mark.

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, however, find no merit in the same.

8. The mark of the respondent is ‘POWERMAN’ and admittedly, the appellant nos.1 and 2 were the exclusive distributors of the respondent firm for more than 10 years, till September 2021. The appellants have adopted a phonetically similar mark, ‘POWERMEN’. The mere change of the alphabet from ‘A’ to ‘E’ would not make any significant difference. The test to be applied in such cases is of a person of imperfect recollection. The two marks are not to be kept side by side for determ