Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, Madhu Jain, JJ
JAIN SHIKANJI PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SATISH KUMAR JAIN – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 130/2023 | LPA 121/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vipin Rana, Ms. Ritu, Mr. Vinay Panwar, Ms. Shivani
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Mr. Harsh Gupta
Compliance with court orders regarding trademark use is critical, with significant penalties for non-compliance, including civil imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rule 2A - Trademark infringement - Appellant was restrained from using the 'Jain Shikanji' trademark by the Trial Court’s interim Order dated 05.11.2022 - Violation of injunction leads to civil imprisonment and attachment of properties - Court found evidence of continued use of the trademark by creating a new entity. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
(B) The obligation of parties to comply with interim orders and the consequences of non-compliance were significant in this case, highlighting the strict enforcement of trademark rights. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant faced allegations of trademark infringement despite an interim injunction, leading to civil contempt proceedings against its director and an attachment order of business properties. The evidence revealed ongoing violations through unauthorized trademark use in new company formations.
Findings of Court:
The Court imposed a civil imprisonment of eight weeks on the director for disobeying the court’s interim order and ordered attachment of properties associated with the offending trademark use.
Issues: The primary issues include whether the appellant violated the interim injunction, and the appropriate sanctions for such violations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders in trademark cases and affirmed the punitive measures for continued infringement as necessary to safeguard the trademark rights of the respondent.
Result: Appeal listed for further hearing.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's initial order regarding trademark use. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims of ongoing trademark use and contempt. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. punitive measures for violation of court orders. (Para 6) |
| 4. further compliance issues and proceedings outlined. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
O R D E R
% 26.08.2025
1. The appellant (Jain Shikanji Private Limited) has filed the present appeal (FAO (COMM) 130/2023), challenging the Order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), on an application filed by the respondent (Satish Kumar Jain) under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) in CS (COMM) 171/2021, titled Satish Kumar Jain v. Jain Shikanji Pvt. Ltd., whereby, the learned Trial Court found the appellant herein to be in violation of its interim Order dated 05.11.2022 passed in the above Suit.
2. By the said Order dated 05.11.2022, the learned Trial Court had passed an interim Order, restraining the appellant from using the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji/Jain Shikanji Restaurant’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Trademark’) or any other trademark which is similar or deceptively similar to the same. We quote from the said Order as under:-
“30. In view of the aforesaid, the present application of the plaintiff is allowed and the defendant herein through its Directors, Agents, Distributors, Employees, or any other person claiming under them or through them, is hereby restrained from selling, offering for saleanygoods, advertisingor promotingany product under the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’/‘Jain Shikanji Restaurant’ or any other trademark which is similar or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff namely ‘Jain Shikanji’ which may amount to infringement of trademark of the plaintiff,till thedisposalof thepresent suit.
Nothing said herein above shall tantamount to any expression of any opinion on merits of this case.”
3. The said Order of the learned Trial Court was upheld by this Court vide its Judgment dated 01.03.2023 passed in FAO (COMM)
185/2022.
4. The respondent filed the above application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, inter alia alleging that the appellant, inspite of the injunction, is still using the Impugned Trademark with impunity and had even constituted a new entity to violate the said Interim Order.
5. Before the learned Trial Court, the appellants took a plea that it has stopped all business under the Impugned Trademarks. It also took a plea before the learned Trial Court that it shall remove all material bearing the Impugned Trademark within 7 to 10 working days, if not already removed. The respondent, however, contended that in spite of the above statements, the Directors of the appellant- Sh. Anubhav Jain and Sh. Vaibhav Jain, continued to use the Impugned Trademarks by creating a new entity under the name of ‘Jain Asli Shikanji’.
6. Finding merit in the said submission, the learned Trial Court found Sh. Anubhav Jain to be guilty of disobeying the Interim Order dated 05.11.2022, and imposed a punishment of civil imprisonment for a period of eight weeks on him. It was further directed that all properties of the appellant or in the name of Sh. Anubhav Jain, from where the business of ‘Jain Shikanji’/‘Jain Asli Shikanji/‘Jain Shikanji Restaurant’ are being conducted, be attached for a period of six months, where after, if the disobedience continues, further action would be decided by the Court.
7. When the present appeal was listed for the first time before this Court on 12.06.2023, an affidavit was filed by the appellant, which inter alia, stated as under:-
“2. I say that in compliance with the order dated 05.11.2022, the Deponent, Petitioner herein, undertake that Jain Shikanji Private Limited shall, through its Directors, Agents, Distributors, Employees, or any other person claiming under them or through them, restrain from selling, offering for sale any goods,
