Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAYANK JAIN PROPRIETOR OF MAHAVEER UDYOG – Appellant
Versus
M/S ATULYA DISCS PVT. LTD. & ORS. – Respondent
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2026
+ CS(COMM) 412/2025
MAYANK JAIN, PROPRIETOR OF MAHAVEER
UDYOG .....Plaintiff
versus
M/S ATULYA DISCS PVT. LTD. & ORS .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr.R.P.Yadav and Mr.Riju Mani Talukdar,
Advocates.
For the Defendants : Dr. Amit George, Mr. Manish Gandhi, Mr.
Vaibhav Gandhi, Ms. Muskan Gandhi, Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul and Ms. Rupam Jha,
Advocates for D-1 to D-3
Ms. Rohini Sharma and Ms. Chanchal
Sharma, Advocates for D-5.
The impugned marks are deceptively similar to Plaintiff's registered marks, leading to public deception, and the Court passes a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
Mere addition of a house mark, especially when such house mark also has a certain reputation and goodwill, would obviate any chance of confusion in the mind of an unwary consumer.
In trademark law, the likelihood of confusion rather than actual confusion is sufficient to grant injunctive relief, especially when the Plaintiff has established prior use and goodwill.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of confusion as a key factor in determining trademark infringement under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The judgment also cla....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article