$

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 20.03.2026 Judgment delivered on: 30.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 30.03.2026 + FAO (COMM) 69/2026 & CM APPL. 14636/2026, CM APPL.

14639- 14642/2026 K.S. OILS LIMITED .....Appellant versus SHIVANG EDIBLES OILS LIMITED AND ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Yatin Chadha, Mr. Mayank Chadha, Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Ms. Shreya Sethi, Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Mr. Kaulik Mitra, Ms. Dolly Luthra, Ms. Aashna Singh, Ms. Sanskriti Rastogi, Ms. Gaurika Chawla and Mr. R. Abhishek, Advs.

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr.

Advs. with Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari, Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Raghvendra N. Budholia, Mr. Sagar Agarwal, Mr. Piyush Gautam, Mr. Harshit Kapoor, Mr. Manav Singh, Mr. Siddhant Bajaj, Mr. Aryan Verma and Ms. Bhavya Arora, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present appeal challenges the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 04.02.2026 [‘impugned order’], whereby the Trial Court while holding that a case of passing off has been made out, has restrained the Appellant/defendant

and ’ [‘impugned marks’] while dealing with edible oils or alike

goods, and from representing itself as the proprietor thereof.

2. In the plaint and the impugned order, ‘ ’ is referred to as the FIRST KALASH LABEL, ‘ ’ as the SECOND KALASH LABEL

and ‘ ’ as the THIRD KALASH LABEL.

3. At its core, the dispute between the parties concerns statutory rights,

proprietorship, prior use, and subsisting goodwill in the trademark ‘KALASH’ and the labels, in relation to edible oils. The Respondent asserts exclusive rights to use the impugned marks on the strength of an assignment deed dated 01.01.2026 executed by its erstwhile Director Sh. Gopal Das Garg. The Respondent contends that the said Sh. Gopal Das Garg adopted the impugned mark ‘KALASH’ by using the First Label ‘ ’ in 1974 and has thereafter, used the said mark in different labels with the last label being . The Respondent contends that Sh. Gopal Das Garg has used the impugned marks continuously and uninterruptedly since, 1974 until 2026 through his several business concerns. The Respondent concedes that the rights in the First KALASH Label were assigned by Sh. Gopal Das Garg in favour of the Appellant in 1996 and the impugned marks were used by the Appellant between 1996 to 2012, however, it contends that the Appellant discontinued the use of the marks in 2012 and also, that the assignment of 1996 made in appellant’s favour is void. It, therefore, contends that the Respondent has the exclusive right to use the impugned marks and it has been using the said marks since 2017 under the express authority and permission of Sh. Gopal Das Garg. The Respondent concedes that it is not the registered proprietor of the impugned marks and has,

therefore, filed this suit on the plea of passing off.

In contrast, the Appellant claims exclusive proprietary rights in the

impugned marks. The Appellant relies upon a deed of assignment dated 26.07.1996 executed in its favour, whereby the registered trademark application no. 305567 , was transferred in its favour and the said transfer was recorded in the register of Trade Marks. It relies upon wordmark registration for KALASH vide TM No. 1773375 on 13.01.2009 and Copyright registration of label in 2009. The Appellant relies upon assignment deed(s) dated 13.08.1986 and 26.07.1996 executed by Sh. Gopal Das Garg in respect of the first KALASH label to assert that the proprietorship of the impugned mark stood transferred in favour of the Appellant and, therefore, no valid assignment could have been made by Sh. Gopal Das Garg in favour of the Respondent on 01.01.2026. It contends that it used the marks till 2017 and thereafter, w