* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.03.2026 + CS(COMM) 291/2024, I.A. 5182/2025 & I.A. 7932/2025 VARUN CHOPRA & ANR. .....Plaintiffs versus SHYAM SUNDER CHOPRA SONS HUF & ORS. .....Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Senior Advocate with Mr. Puneet Yadav, Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Mr. Akshansh Gupta, Mr. Gurjas Varul, Mr.

Vasudev and Ms. Priya Mittal, Advocates.

For the Defendants : Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Devesh Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Mr. Imtiaj, Mr. Aditya Mr. Divya Prakash Arya, Mr. Ramadeep, Mr. Parth Gautam and Mr. Eish Kesarwani, Advocates for D-1 to D-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J I.A. 7808/2024 INTRODUCTION:

1. The present Suit has been filed, inter alia, for permanently restraining the Defendants from using the Marks ‘SV NATRAJ’ / ‘ ’ / ‘SV

RAJ’ / ‘ ’ / ‘RAJNUT’ / ‘SRI NATRAJ JI’ (“Impugned Marks”) allegedly infringing the Mark, Device of ‘NATRAJ GOD’ along with the

words ‘NATRAJ BRAND’/ ‘ ’, claiming to have been first adopted and put to use by the partnership firm, M/s Raja Traders consisting of two partners, Jagdaman Kumar Chopra (“J K Chopra”) and Mohan Lal Chopra, father of J K Chopra, which was registered on 25.12.1978 vide registration No. 344176 under the category of saffron and silver foil used in confectionary for decorative purposes (edible)

in Class 30 (“Subject Mark”).

2. J K Chopra was Plaintiff No. 2 in the Suit however on 11.01.2025, he passed away and vide order dated 10.03.2025, he was deleted from the array of Parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff No. 1, Varun Chopra, who is grandson of J K Chopra is the sole Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 is a Hindu Undivided Family (“HUF”) represented by its Karta, Shyam Sunder Chopra, son of J K Chopra. Defendant No. 2, Sampan Chopra is the son of Shyam Sunder Chopra and grandson of J K Chopra. Defendant No. 3 is a partnership / proprietorship firm controlled and represented by Vaibhav Chopra, son of Vinod Kumar Chopra and grandson J K Chopra. Defendant No. 4 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, represented through Vaibhav Chopra, who is also Defendant No. 5 in the Suit. Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 are agents of Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and are allegedly selling products bearing the Impugned Marks (“Infringing Products”) through online portals.

3. This is an Application on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for grant of interim injunction against the Defendants restraining them from using the Impugned Marks or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Subject Mark in relation to the goods namely saffron and silver foil used in confectionary for decorative purposes (edible) or any other allied and cognate goods and passing off their business as that of the Plaintiff.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPLAINTIFF:

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

4.1. J K Chopra along with his father Late Mohan Lal Chopra started the partnership firm M/s Raja Traders in the year 1956, when the Subject Mark was first adopted and put to use.

4.2. Mohan Lal Chopra expired on 14.05.1980 and M/s Raja Traders was dissolved and J K Chopra continued to do business as sole proprietor of M/s Raja Traders running the same for the next 46 years and filed the accounts and financial returns including operating the bank accounts of M/s Raja Traders as sole proprietor holding the GST certificate in the name of J K Chopra. The financial returns placed on record, further show that Shyam Sunder Chopra, Vinod Kumar Chopra, and Saurabh Chopra, deceased son of Shyam Sunder Chopra, were working as salaried employees with M/s Raja Traders.

4.3. On 22.07.2015, Shyam Sunder Chopra and Vinod Kumar Chopra executed and filed affidavits (“Affidavits”) with the Trade Marks Registry for recognizing and affirming the change of ownership of the Subject M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document