Delhi High Court Upholds Rejection of Plaints in Trademark Infringement Suits Against Unauthorized Use of 'Westend Greens' Mark

Court Decision and Context

In a significant ruling on December 17, 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, dismissed four appeals filed by the Westend Green Farms Society (appellant). The appeals challenged orders from the Commercial Court-02, New Delhi, which rejected the plaints under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for failing to disclose a cause of action. The suits alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the unauthorized use of the registered mark "WESTEND GREENS" by respondents, including Vicky Kakkar, Pratyush Kanth, Manu, and Kapil Kumaria, on signboards outside their farmhouses in the neighboring Amaltas Avenue Resident’s Welfare Society.

The court emphasized that rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) must be based solely on the plaint's averments, read holistically, and proceeded on a demurrer—assuming the pleaded facts to be true. The bench found the plaints deficient in establishing essential elements for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and for passing off.

Case Overview

The Westend Green Farms Society, registered proprietor of the "WESTEND GREENS" trademark in Class 45 (for welfare and protection services for members) since 1993, instituted commercial suits (e.g., CS (Comm) 294/2022) against the respondents. The society claimed exclusive rights to the mark, which had acquired substantial reputation and goodwill. The respondents, residents of the independent Amaltas Avenue Society (registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860), were accused of installing signboards featuring "WESTEND GREENS" alongside their farm numbers (e.g., Farm No. 18A), misleading the public into believing their properties were part of the appellant's society. This, the appellant argued, aimed to enhance property values for leasing or selling, constituting infringement and passing off.

The Commercial Court rejected the plaints, holding that the averments did not demonstrate "use in the course of trade"—a prerequisite for infringement under Section 29. The appellant appealed via Regular First Appeals (Commercial) numbered 196/2025, 203/2025, 204/2025, and 211/2025, seeking restoration of the suits.

Main Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions

Represented by Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji, the appellant argued that the plaints sufficiently disclosed a cause of action. Key points included:

- The society's continuous use of "WESTEND GREENS" since 1993, with valid registrations in Class 45 as both word and device marks.

- The respondents' unjustified use of the mark on signboards to falsely associate their farms with the appellant's society, capitalizing on its goodwill to attract customers for leasing/selling properties.

- Assertions in the plaint (e.g., para 13) that respondents were "carrying commercial activity" and "trying to enhance [property] value... for the purpose of leasing/selling," satisfying "use in the course of trade."

- Even if infringement under Section 29 was weakly pleaded, the facts supported passing off, entitling the society to exclusive rights under Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act.

- Reliance on precedents like Glaxo Group Limited v. Vipin Gupta (2006) 133 DLT 207 and Automatic Electric Ltd v. R.K. Dhawan (1999) 77 DLT 292, asserting that the infringer's intent is irrelevant and registration grants prima facie exclusivity.

The appellant urged the court to set aside the rejection, allowing the suits to proceed to trial.

Respondents' Contentions

Counsels for the respondents, including Rakesh Lakra and Rajiv Tyagi, defended the Commercial Court's order. They contended:

- The plaints lacked averments showing "use in the course of trade," an essential ingredient for Section 29 infringement. Mere signboard use, without commercial dealing in goods/services, did not qualify.

- The single bald reference to "commercial activity" (para 13) was unsubstantiated, with no details on its nature or linkage to the mark's use.

- The layout plan filed with the plaint indicated Amaltas Avenue as part of the broader "Westend Green Farms" area, justifying the signboard references geographically, not commercially.

- No prima facie case for passing off, as the plaints failed to plead specific goods/services misrepresented or actual/potential damage.

- Citations included Pepsico Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola (2001) 94 DLT 30 and Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Toshiba Appliances Co. (2024) 100 PTC 569, defining "use in the course of trade" as requiring economic advantage through buying/selling.

The respondents sought dismissal of the appeals, affirming the plaints' rejection.

Legal Precedents and Principles Applied

The bench applied settled principles on Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC, drawing from Supreme Court rulings like D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Janakiraman (1999) 3 SCC 267, Mayar (HK) Ltd v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express (2006) 3 SCC 100, and Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai (2005) 10 SCC 760. These emphasize reading the plaint holistically to check for "material facts" constituting a cause of action—facts the plaintiff must prove for relief—without relying on defenses or external evidence. Artful pleadings cannot create a non-existent cause of action.

For infringement, the court confined analysis to Section 29, noting it applies only to registered marks used "in the course of trade" (sub-sections 1 and 2). Unregistered marks cannot be infringed, and sub-sections (4), (5), and (7)-(9) were inapplicable. The bench clarified that "use in the course of trade" requires a commercial link, not mere enhancement of property value or vague "commercial activity" without specifics.

On passing off, the court referenced the classic trinity from Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc. (1990) 1 All ER 873 (adopted in Turning Point v. Turning Point Institute Pvt Ltd , 250 (2018) DLT 563) and Satyam Infoway Ltd v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd (2004) 6 SCC 145: goodwill/reputation, misrepresentation leading to public confusion, and damage/likelihood thereof. The plaints failed to identify misrepresented goods/services or link confusion to commercial harm.

Distinctions were drawn: infringement protects the registered mark statutorily, while passing off safeguards goodwill against misrepresentation. Both require pleaded commercial context, absent here. The court noted rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) is drastic but mandatory if no cause of action is disclosed, per P.V. Guru Raj Reddy v. P. Neeradha Reddy (2015) 8 SCC 331.

Pivotal Excerpts from the Judgment

The bench highlighted the Commercial Court's reasoning, quoting para 34-35 of the impugned order: "Applying the ratio... it would be quite evident that one of the essential ingredients i.e. ‘use of trademark in the course of trade’... is missing... Except for one bald single sentence... the entire plaint is found to be completely silent... The plaintiff has nowhere disclosed... the nature of any such commercial activity."

On analysis, the court observed (para 16.1.16): "Enhancing the value of one’s property cannot constitute ‘use in the course of trade’, absent trade in the property... There is nothing... to support the allegation that the respondent was trying to lease or sell the farm." For passing off (para 16.2.10): "An allegation of misrepresentation, by itself, cannot make out a cause of action... The appellant has contented itself with an allegation of misrepresentation... As to how this misrepresentation is vis-à-vis any goods or services provided by the respondents, the plaint is totally silent."

Final Decision and Implications

The Delhi High Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the rejection of the plaints. No costs were imposed. The ruling reinforces strict pleading requirements in intellectual property suits, particularly for "use in the course of trade" under Section 29, preventing frivolous claims from proceeding to trial. It serves as a caution for trademark proprietors to aver specific commercial misuse and material facts, while reminding courts to exercise Order VII Rule 11(a) judiciously yet firmly. This decision may influence future commercial litigation in Delhi, emphasizing holistic plaint scrutiny to avoid "artful pleadings."