$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 13.04.2026 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 100/2026 CM APPL. 23776/2026 CM APPL.

23777/2026 CM APPL. 23778/2026 CM APPL. 23779/2026 CM APPL. 23780/2026 MAYANK JAIN PROPRIETOR OF MAHAVEER UDYOG .....Appellant Through: Mr. R. P. Yadav, Mr. Riju Mani Talukdar and Mr. Divyanshu Yadav, Advs. versus ATULYA DISCS PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.01.2026 [‘impugned order’] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. 11309/2025 in CS (Comm) No. 412/2025 titled Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

2. Appellant is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agricultural implements more specifically harrows disc. It adopted the mark TIGER GOLD BRAND

[‘label’] [‘Appellant’s mark’] and has been using it for

its goods since 06.05.2010.

2.1. Appellant filed an application for registration of TIGER GOLD BRAND (label) in Class 7 on 01.06.2022, which was registered by the Registrar of Trademarks and the registration certificate was issued on 02.02.2023. In its application, the Appellant claimed user since 06.05.2010, which was accepted.

3. Respondent No. 1 was incorporated on 26.11.2020. It applied for

registration of its mark TIGER PREMIUM BRAND

(Label) on 09.03.2022 [‘impugned mark’], on a proposed to be used basis which is currently pending registration.

4. Appellant issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 08.10.2024 to the Respondents which was replied vide notice dated 28.10.2024 whereby the Respondent denied any similarity between the two labels and refrained from ceasing the use of the same.

5. In these facts, Appellant filed the suit on 16.04.2025 and prayed for an interim injunction. The Appellant contends that the Appellant is the prior user of its mark since 06.06.2010 and that there is overall similarity of the marks between Appellant’s mark and Respondent’s impugned mark and therefore raised a plea of passing of.

6. The ld. Single Judge has dismissed the injunction application held in the impugned order as under: -

“7. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have contended that 'TIGER' cannot be monopolized by the Plaintiff as 'TIGER' is common to the trade and generic word. It is contended by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that the Mark 'TIGER' is commonly used for goods falling under Class 7 and the online record of the Trade Marks Office reflects that the word 'TIGER' in standalone has no Trade Mark value and is not capable of distinguishing the goods and services. The Plaintiff has not been able to establish ownership over the Mark 'TIGER' in absence of the registration of Word Mark 'TIGER' or any 'TIGER' formative Marks, which is relevant for examining the deceptive similarity of the Impugned Mark.

8. The Marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are generic in nature and incapable of being registered as a Trade Mark. The Plaintiff does not have exclusive right to use the Word Marks, 'TIGER' and 'BRAND'. There is a widespread use of the Mark 'TIGER' for various goods and services across India. Hence, 'TIGER' is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark 'TIGER' has acquired secondary meaning. The Mark 'TIGER' does not have an exclusive character and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim exclusive right over the same.

Deceptive Similarity of the Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Mark

9. The Plaintiff's Mark and the Impugned Mark are not deceptively similar as the Impugned Mark has to be considered as a whole. The Impugned Mark considered as a whole is wholly dissimilar to the Plaintiff's Mark, the Impugned Mark is visually different to the Plaintiff's Mark, even the 'TIGER' device in the r