2026 Supreme(Del) 654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
M/s Vajiram And Ravi ISA Study Centre LLP - Appellant
Versus
M/s Vajirao And Reddy Institute Pvt Ltd - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 7 of 2024 & CM APPL. 2820 of 2024, CM APPL. 14739 of 2026
Decided On : 26-05-2026

An appellate court will not substitute its own discretion for that of a trial court in interlocutory trademark matters unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse. Furthermore, a passing off claim requires concrete evidence of reputation and confusion, which is undermined by prolonged prosecutorial inaction.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 43 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, Order 17 Rules 2 and 3 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13(1) - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 33 - Passing off action - Interim injunction - Appellate interference - Principles regarding. (Paras 1, 37-39)

(B) Appellate Scope - Exercise of discretion by Trial Court - Appellate court should not substitute its subjective view for that of trial court unless the exercise of discretion is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse - An appeal against discretion is an appeal on principle. (Paras 37-39)

(C) Passing Off - Essential ingredients - Plaintiff must establish reputation and goodwill associated with mark, misrepresentation by defendant, and likelihood of confusion or damage - Failure to demonstrate reputation or likelihood of confusion warrants denial of injunctive relief. (Paras 22, 28, 30)

(D) Procedural Conduct - Wilful inaction in prosecuting a suit - Failure to record evidence despite the lapse of several years after framing of issues denotes lack of bona fides and may justify dismissal for non-prosecution. (Paras 19-21, 40-41) (E) Similarity of Marks - Composite marks - Must be considered as a whole and compared holistically - Phonetic, visual, and structural similarity must be significant to warrant injunction. (Paras 18, 25-27)

Facts of the case:
Two educational service providers were engaged in a dispute over trademark usage. The appellant sought an interim injunction against the respondent's use of a mark alleged to be similar. The trial court denied the injunction, concluding that the composite marks were distinguishable and the target audience was capable of differentiation. The appellant challenged this order while having failed to proceed with production of evidence in the trial for several years.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the composite marks, when compared in their entirety, are not deceptively similar. Furthermore, the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish reputation and goodwill for its standalone mark or to demonstrate actual consumer confusion. The court emphasized the need for diligent prosecution and upheld the trial court's discretionary refusal of an injunction, noting that the respondent’s long-standing, concurrent use of its mark further discouraged the claim.

Issues: Whether the marks are deceptively similar, whether the trial court’s refusal of an interim injunction was perverse, and whether the appellant’s conduct in failing to prosecute the suit justifies maintaining the denial of the injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate courts must not interfere with discretionary orders unless the lower court erred on principle; in a passing off action, without proof of goodwill and likelihood of confusion, injunctive relief cannot be granted, especially when the plaintiff demonstrates a lack of bona fide interest in prosecuting the suit to trial.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishment of procedural history and factual context of the trademark dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding trademark similarities, dishonest adoption, and the impact of delay/acquiescence. (Para 10 , 11)
3. review of trial court's assessment comparing composite marks as a whole. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. consequences of lack of bona fide interest in prosecuting a lawsuit, including potential dismissal. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 40 , 41)
5. establishing the necessity of proving goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of confusion in passing-off actions. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 35 , 36)
6. appellate courts should not interfere with trial court's discretionary exercise unless based on perverse reasoning. (Para 29 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order dated 14.09.2023 [‘impugned judgment’].

2. The present appeal pertains to a dispute inter-se two institutions, ‘VAJIRAM & RAVI’ and ‘VAJIRAO & REDDY’, both engaged in the business of coaching candidates for the Indian Civil Services examination.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The Appellant was established by Professor P. Velayutham as a sole proprietor under the trademark ‘VAJIRAM & RAO’. The usage of the said mark continued till 1976, when Mr. P.S. Ravindram took over the management of the institute and renamed it as ‘VAJIRAM & RAVI’ [‘Appellant’s mark’].

4. The Appellant holds wordmark registrations as well as device mark registrations of ‘VAJIRAM & RAVI’ and ‘VAJIRAM & RAO’, [Details of the Appellant’s various registrations are set out at page 71 of the paper-book.].

5. The Respondent also engaged in the same business as the Appellant, has been operating under the trademark ‘VAJIRAO & REDDY’ [‘impugned mark’] at least since 2007. The Respondent has registration for the device mark bearing TM no. 1859489.

6. The Appellant has no objection to the Respondent’s business of coaching and training students; however, the Appellant has an objection to the Respondent’s use of the trademark ‘VAJIRAO’, which is deceptively similar to the Appellant’s trademark ‘VAJIRAM’ appearing in the name of the Appellant and is an abbreviated form of the name ‘VAJIRAM & RAO’.

7. The Appellant, being aggrieved and the prior adopter of the marks ‘VAJIRAM’, ‘VAJIRAM & RAO’ and ‘VAJIRAM & RAVI’, filed a suit CS(COMM)43/2019 seeking an interim injunction restraining the Respondent from using the impugned mark and passing off its impugned mark as that of the Appellant’s mark.

8. The learned Single Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023, denied interim injunction on the ground that there are notable dissimilarities between the rival marks as a whole, and the Appellant lacked compelling evidence to indicate the likelihood of confusion.

9. In these facts, the Appellant has filed the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES

Submissions by the Appellant

10. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel for the Appellant, states that the impugned mark cannot be said to be dissimilar. The Appellant’s name was known as ‘VAJIRAO’, an abbreviation of the mark ‘VAJIRAM & RAO’, which was popular amongst students in the 1980s and 1990s, and hence the use of the impugned mark creates confusion in the minds of the public.

10.1. He states that the cause of action arose in December 2018, when the Respondent put up a hoarding opposite the institute of the Appellant whilst advertising its institute; prior to that, the Appellant was not aware of the Respondent.

10.2. He states that the learned Single Judge has disregarded the submission that when the adoption of the impugned mark by the Respondent was dishonest, the plea of delay and acquiescence is to be rejected. In this regard, he places r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document