* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 19th May, 2025 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 355/2021 INDER RAJ SAHNI PROPRIETOR M/S SAHNI COSMETICS ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Mr. Hardik Gogia and Mr. Akash Singh, Advocates.

versus NEHA HERBALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, Mr. Rohit Pradhan and Ms.

Prashansa Singh, Advocates.

+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 455/2022 INDER RAJ SAHNI M/S SAHNI COSMETICS, 4650, GALI MOHAR SINGH JAT, PAHARI DHIRAJ, DELHI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Mr. Hardik Gogia and Mr. Akash Singh, Advocates.

versus VIKAS GUPTA, 5240, KOLHAPUR HOUSE, KAMLA NAGAR, DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, Mr. Rohit Pradhan and Ms.

Prashansa Singh, Advocates. + CS(COMM) 207/2023 VIKAS GUPTA AND ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Adarsh Agarwal, Mr. Rohit Pradhan and Ms.

Prashansa Singh, Advocates.

versus M/S SAHNI COSMETICS ..... Defendant Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Mr. Hardik Gogia and Mr. Akash Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

J U D G M E N T

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The present suit arises from competing claims over the use of trademark “NEHA”. What might otherwise be seen as a common Indian forename has, in this instance, become the focal point of a trademark dispute between two entities operating in the personal care sector, each asserting rival claims of prior commercial adoption. While the Plaintiffs have used the mark in relation to their line of Mehandi and allied herbal products, the Defendant has applied it to its range of face creams. This Court is therefore, called upon to adjudicate the competing assertions of prior use of an identical mark across overlapping product categories, and to determine whether the Defendant’s use amounts to trademark infringement and/or passing off.

2. THE PARTIES

2.1. Vikas Gupta – Plaintiff No. 1 in CS(COMM) 207/2023 is the Director of Plaintiff No. 2 – Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd, a company incorporated in the year 2007, under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013. Plaintiff No. 2 operates the business which deals in manufacture and trading of Henna (Mehandi)

Powder, Mehandi Cones (Paste) and Hair dyes/Hair Colour Products.

2.2. In the year 1992, Plaintiff No. 1 started a proprietorship concern under the name of M/s Neha Enterprises and continued to carry out his business under this entity alongside Plaintiff No. 2 from 2007 until 2012, when Plaintiff No. 2 took over its business, with all its assets and liabilities vide assignment deed dated 1^st May, 2012.

2.3. Mr. Inder Raj Sahni, the sole proprietor of M/s Sahni Cosmetics, is the Defendant in CS(COMM) 207/2023 and Petitioner in C.O. (COMM.IPD-

TM) 355/2021 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 455/2022.

THE CONTROVERSY

3. The Case of Neha Herbals Private Limited (In Brief)

3.1 The Plaintiff No. 1 (Mr. Vikas Gupta) adopted the trademark “NEHA” in the year 1992, drawing inspiration from the first name of his sister. Since then, the mark has been used continuously in relation to Henna (Mehandi) Powder and Mehandi Cones (paste). Initially, Plaintiff No. 1 used the trademark in connection with the business of Henna (Mehandi) powder and Ubtan (face packs); over time, its use expanded to include products such as Henna cones (paste), hair dyes, and hair colouring products.

3.2 The Plaintiff No. 1 initially secured registration for the label mark “NEHA RACHNI MEHANDI” under Application No. 861826 in Class 3, with effect from 21^st June, 1999. This registration was subsequently removed from the register on account of non-renewal. Plaintiff No. 1 attributes the lapse to non-receipt of the statutory renewal notice (Form O-3), and contends that the failure to renew was inadvertent.

3.3 Plaintiff No. 1 holds registration for the word mark “NEHA” under Registration No. 1198061 in Class 3, covering goods including Kali Mehandi, Mehandi, Ritha, Amla, Shikakai Powder, Trifla, Mehandi Oil and Herbal Mehandi, claiming continuous user