Where a trade mark contains generic or common-to-trade terms, the proprietor cannot claim exclusive rights over those specific words. Comparison of marks for infringement must be done as a whole; if marks are distinct in their overall impression, no injunction is warranted.

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

I.A. No. 11309/2025 (U/O XXXIX R-1& 2 of the CPC)

1. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking an interim injunction restraining infringement of the Mark, ‘ / TIGER GOLD BRAND (“Plaintiff’s Mark”), infringement of Copyright, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, unfair competition by directly / indirectly selling, advertising, mentioning, and / or using the Mark ‘TIGER PREMIUM BRAND/ ’ (“Impugned Mark”).

2. Vide Order dated 06.05.2025, the Parties were referred to Delhi High Court Medication and Conciliation Centre, Delhi High Court to amicably resolve the disputes between them, however, the Parties were unable to settle the dispute and thereafter, Notice was issued in the present Application vide Order dated 28.08.2025.

3. Vide Order dated 12.11.2025, after conclusion of arguments by the Parties, the judgment was reserved.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

4. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:

4.1. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Plaintiff’s Mark. The Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm established on 01.09.1997 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agriculture goods such as Harrows, Disc Harrows, Tractor-towed harrows, etc. The Plaintiff’s Mark was adopted by the Plaintiff in May, 2010 for agricultural implements other than hand operated Harrows, Disc Harrows, etc. and has been using the Plaintiff’s Mark continuously and uninterruptedly since then.

4.2. Over the years, the Plaintiff has built a large and loyal customer base and goodwill among the customer, reputation in the industry, trusted network of distributors and retailers, manufacturing base using advanced technology and quality control etc. The Plaintiff is generating revenue around ₹40 crores per year for last three financial years. On 01.06.2022, the Plaintiff filed an application for registration of the Plaintiff’s Mark with the Trade Marks Registry. The registration and exclusive right to use the Plaintiff’s Mark was granted to the Plaintiff by the Trade Marks Registry on 02.02.2023.

4.3. Over time, the Plaintiff’s Mark has developed significant reputation and goodwill within the market, particularly among customers and farmers who utilise Harrows, Disc Harrows, and Tractor-towed Harrows, owing to the high quality of its goods. The Mark has become distinctive in relation to the Plaintiff's products. The Plaintiff has invested substantial resources, including money, time, and effort, in promoting and advertising the trademark through various channels such as magazines, journals, periodicals, and an interactive website. Members of the trade consistently associate the Plaintiff’s Mark exclusively with the Plaintiff’s goods.

4.4. Because of the immense reputation and goodwill, the sales of the products under the Plaintiff’s Mark have increased over the period and the brand is generating around ₹2 crores of revenue per year from last two financial years and have become the primary choice of purchase by the customers.

4.5. The Defendant has adopted the Impugned Mark, which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, for goods identical to those of the Plaintiff, specifically agricultural implements other than Hand-operated types, such as Harrows, Disc Harrows, and Tractor-towed Harrows. In October 2