[2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3149/2024 M/s. Narayan Tea Company, Subhash Chowk, Near Bangla Girls School, Churu Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Bagra S/o Udai Chand Ji Bagra, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Subhash Chowk, Near Bangla Girls School, Churu.

----Appellant Versus M/s. Raj Laxmi Tea Company, Through Its Owner/proprietor Ram Gopal Sharma S/o Hanuman Mal, R/o Bhama Katla, Station Road, Post Sujangarh, District Churu, ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bishnoi for Mr. SK Verma For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

20/01/2026

1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. Consequently, the appellant has been restrained by way of temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit, from manufacturing or selling similar or parallel products, either directly or through dealers, distributors, representatives, employees or agents, under the trade mark “RAJLAXMI” or packing label wholly or partially similar thereto.

2. Briefly speaking, it is stated that the respondent, a sole proprietorship engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea, is the registered proprietor of the trademark “RAJLAXMI,” first registered on 29.04.2008 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The trademark “RAJLAXMI” forms the essential and dominant feature of the respondent’s tea products, which are sold in distinctive packaging featuring unique artistic work, design, colour combination, layout, and get-up.

2.1. Claiming statutory protection over its registered trademark and packing label, the respondent alleged that the appellant was manufacturing and selling tea under the trademark “SHREE RAJLAXMI,” which is deceptively similar to “RAJLAXMI,” and was also using a packing label closely resembling that of the respondent. On these allegations, the respondent instituted a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against infringement, destruction of infringing material, and compensation of ₹5,01,000/- for alleged losses. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the appellant from using the impugned trademark or similar packaging during the pendency of the suit.

2.2. The appellant filed a written statement denying infringement and contended that its product was distinct in quality, packaging, and labelling, and that it was lawfully marketing tea under a different brand. It was further asserted that no consumer confusion or deception was caused and that the suit was filed to unlawfully restrain the appellant’s business. In additional submissions, the appellant claimed a familial relationship with the respondent, stating that both families had long been engaged in the tea business, and argued that the respondent had concealed this fact. The appellant maintained that its packaging, design, colour scheme, and product details were different, that no goodwill of the respondent was harmed, and that the suit lacked cause of action and urgency.

2.3. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the learned Commercial Court vide impugned order dated 25.09.2024, the Court allowed the respondent’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from manufacturing or selling tea under the trademark “RAJLAXMI” or any other deceptively similar name or packing label during the pendency of the suit.

3. Hence the instant appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.

5. The learned counsel for appellant contends that the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order granting temporary injunction is contrary to law and the material on record, as the lea