Delhi District Court
Sanjha Chulha Through Authorized ... vs Sanjha Chulha on 11 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM-07), DIGITAL
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM) 467/2022
M/s SANJHA CHULHA
Having Shop At:
A-31, Shop No. 17-22,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
(Through Its Partners)
Mr. Nand Kishore
Son Of Late Shri Jiya Lal
Having Address At:
A-31, Shop No. 17-22,
Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
Mr. Suresh Kumar
Son Of Late Shri Jiya Lal
Having Address At:
A-31, Shop No. 17-22
Kailash Colony, New Delhi-110048
... Plaintiffs
Versus
1. M/s SANJHA CHULHA
Having Address At:
Shop no. 12 & 16, Sector 19, Part-2 Market,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002
Also at:
Shop no. 55, HUDA Market,
Sector 46, Faridabad, Haryana-121001
Defendant no. 1
2. Mr. Inder Sood
Partner at:
M/s SANJHA CHULHA Having Address At:
Shop no. 12 & 16, Sector 19, Part-2 Market,
Faridabad, Haryana-121002.
Also at:
Shop no. 55, HUDA Market, Sector 46,
Digitally
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Page 1 of 51
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:41:58
+0530
Faridabad, Haryana-121001.
Defendant no. 2
3. Mr. Girish Sud
Partner at:
M/s SANJHA CHULHA
Having Address At:
Shop no. 12 & 16, Sector 19,
Part-2 Market, Faridabad,
Haryana-121002
Also at:
Shop no. 55, HUDA Market,
Sector 46, Faridabad,
Haryana-121001
Defendant no. 3
4. Swiggy India
Bundl Technologies Private Limited
58/3, First Floor, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
Defendant no. 4
5. Zomato Media Pvt. Ltd.
Ground Floor 12A, 94
Meghdoot, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019
Defendant no. 5
6. Just Dial Limited
Plot Number A-39, 40, Noida
Sector 16, Uttar Pradesh - 201301
Defendant no. 6
Date of Institution: 18.05.2022
Arguments concluded on : 12.01.2026
Date of Judgment: 11.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the rival contentions concentrated around the trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' (in device and label). Plaintiff, a partnership firm, having its place of business at A-31, Shop No. 17-22, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, through partners Sh. Nand Kishore and Sh. Suresh Kumar, have Digitally signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 2 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:42:03 +0530 insisted for relief of permanent injunction, delivery up and damages, alleging infringement and passing-off of the trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' against defendant, a partnership firm of the same name, being managed by defendants No. 2 and 3, Sh. Inder Sood and Sh. Girish Sood, partners.
2. Plaintiff claims the user of tradename 'Sanjha Chulha' since 1986 and insists its existence as partnership firm since 1997 at the above address. Plaintiff claims good reputation and asserts opening of other branches at C. R. Park and Defence Colony as a proof of expansion of the trademark. Plaintiff insists that it devised/ coined the trademark 'Sanjha Chulha', as a combination of two arbitrary words.
3. Plaintiff submits the existence of following registrations, which are particulared as below:
SN Application no Trademark Status Class Goods
1. 766554 SANJHA Registered 29 Meat, Fish, Mughlai Indian, CHULHA Chinese as Tandoori Chicken Tikka. (LABLE) Sekh Kabab, Butter Chicken, Dal
2. 1040537 SANJHA Registered 29 Preserved And Ready to Eat. I CHULHA Meat, Fish, Poultry, Mughlai, (LABLE) Indian, Chinese as Tandoori Chicken, Tikka, Sekh Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken and Non-
Vegetarian and Vegetarian Packed Foods
3. 1006350 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, Letter CHULHA Heads, Visiting (LABLE) Cards, Bill Books, Cardboard and Cardboard Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu Cards, Stationery
4. 1040539 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, Letter CHULHA Heads, Visiting (LABLE) Cards, Bill Books, Cardboard and Cardboard Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu Cards, Stationery
5. 1006351 SANJHA Registered 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Sugar, CHULHA Rice, Tapioca, Sago, Coffee (LABLE) Substitutes, Flour and Flour Preparations Made from Cereals, Bread, Biscuits, Cake, Pastry and Confectionery, Ices, and All Digitally signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 3 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:42:07 +0530 Other Ready Food for Human Consumption
6. 4581878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel and Restaurants, Food CHULHA Services, Catering Services (LABLE)
7. 5239415 SANJHA Objected 29 Preserved, Dried and Ready CHULHA to Eat Meat, Fish, Poultry, (WORD Pickle, Mughlai, Indian, MARK) Chinese as Tandoori Chicken, Tikk:a, Sekh Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken Jellies, Jams, Fruit Sauces: Eggs, Milk and Milk Products: Edible Oils, Fats Foods and Non-Vegetarian and Vegetarian Cooked Packed Foods
8. 5239416 SANJHA Objected 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Sugar, CHULHA Rice, Tapioca Sago, Coffee (WORD Substitutes, Flour and MARK) Preparation Made from Cereals, Bread, Biscuits, Cake, Pastry and Confectionery, Ices, Ready Food for Human Consumption
9. 5239417 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel Restaurant and Food, CHULHA Beverage and Food Catering (WORD Seivices, Namely, Providing of MARK) Food and Beverages for Consumption on and off the Premises.
10. 458I878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel And Restaurants, Food CHULHA Services, Catering Services (LABEL)
11. 2110609 SANJHA Opposed 43 Hotels And Restaurants, Providing CHULHA Food And Drink, Take Away Foods, (LABEL) Temporary Accommodations Services.
12. 1298323 SANJHA Opposed 42 Hotal and Restaurants, Providing CHULHA Food and Drink Take Away Foods, (LABEL) Temporary Accommodation
4. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of promotional activities, plaintiff has achieved overwhelming success of mark 'Sanjha Chulha', trademark (word and device), which is illustrated by annual turn-over. Plaintiff has relied upon the sales figure from 2017 to 2022 which are particulared as below:
YEARS SALES (IN RUPEES) (APPROX.)
2017-18 88,82,640
2018-19 13,882,499
2019-20 25,534,304
2020-21 21,674,258
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha
Digitally
Page 4 of 51
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:42:12
+0530
2021-22 26,569,751
5. Plaintiff credits enormous publicity it carried out in Delhi- NCR region and claims that it spent Rs. 1,23,724/- as expense in the year 2021 for carrying out the publicity, as a result, plaintiff's presence is visible on various search engines. The services of plaintiff are highly rated and since continuous and long use from 1986, plaintiff asserts to have acquired a well-known reputation of its mark 'Sanjha Chulha' (label and device) within the scope of Section 2(1)(z)(e) of Trademarks Act.
6. Plaintiff claims to have gathered the information of defendant's presence only in October 2017. Learning the defendant has applied for registration vide application No. 3217600 dated 23.06.2016 in Class 30, plaintiff initiated opposition proceedings vide opposition bearing No. 906849 against defendant's application No. 3217610 on 05.11.2017. Plaintiff's above opposition was retaliated by defendant who filed the opposition on 18.04.2018 against plaintiff's trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' (device) bearing application No. 2110609 in Class 43 vide date 07.03.2011, which was pending till the time of filing of the suit.
7. Plaintiff learnt that defendant's application No. 1266381 dated 11.02.2004 in Class 30 for impugned mark was successful and the mark was registered in the name of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff finds fault with the registration in wrongfully examining defendant's application No. 1266381 and claims it contrary to the purview of Section 11 of Trademarks Act 1999, as the plaintiff's registered trademark was directly copied by defendant as well as the name of the firm being phonetical and visually identical/ similar to plaintiff's prior registrations. Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 5 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:42:16 +0530
8. Plaintiff states that though the defendant's application was due for renewal on 11.11.2014, it has not been renewed and must be considered abandoned. Though, the status of the same has not changed by the trademarks registry even after the expiry of grace period of two years past the date of renewal. Plaintiff's rectification petition bearing No. 264989 against defendant's application bearing No. 1266381 on 01.08.2018 is instituted which is pending. Keeping in view the above, as plaintiff patiently waited for trademarks registry to provide any relief or reply, however, none is received, defendant as a precautionary measure was served with cease and desist notices dated 04.04.2021 and 25.04.2022, despite which defendants are continuing to carry out contrasting activities.
9. Plaintiff claims that defendants are expanding their business under the impugned trademark and plaintiff upon investigation conducted in May 2021 learnt that defendant No. 1 has opened another branch at shop No. 55, HUDA Market, Sector-46, Fardabad, Haryana. Plaintiff in addition, gathered the information of defendant's having started to provide online services from their shop No. 55, HUDA Market, Sector-46, under impugned mark 'Sanjha Chulha' through delivery platforms defendants No. 4, 5 and 6. Defendants No. 4, 5 and 6 then were issued cease and desist notice on 10.05.2022.
10. Plaintiff claims infringement of its trademark and violation of copyright being 'prior user' and 'registered proprietor' of trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' word and device under Class 16, 29 and 30, and being owner of artistic work 'Sanjha Chulha'. It is alleged that overall comparison of trademark under which defendants are conducting their business cannot be a coincidence. As the overall comparison shows no difference Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 6 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:42:20 +0530 between the impugned mark and plaintiff's trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' label and 'Sanjha Chulha' device, it is bound to cause confusion and association between the two as any ordinary person of average common intelligence would be led to believe that food and restaurant business of defendants are related to plaintiff's well known mark.
11. Plaintiffs allege that defendants are deliberately infringing the registered trademark of plaintiff 'Sanjha Chula' (label and device), and are passing-off the services deliberately, by using and displaying the mark 'Sanjha Chulha' in relation to its food and restaurant services. Plaintiff asserts violation of its common law and statutory rights under Section 29 of Trademarks Act, 1999 and claims that defendant being competitor of plaintiff are inclined to claim benefit by use of deceptively similar mark which is bound to mark confusion amongst the consumers. Based on circumstances above, plaintiff has prayed for reliefs of permanent injunction, delivery up and damages.
Written Statement
12. Defendant resisted the plaintiff's claim of infringement and passing-off of trademark 'Sanjha Chulha'. Defendant disputes plaintiff's claim of exclusivity of word 'Sanjha Chulha'. Defendant attributed the origin of Punjabi word 'Sanjha Chulha' to the times of Guru Nanak Dev Ji and claimed that Guru Nanak Dev Ji started the tradition of community kitchen/ langar, where all women folk would use a single earthen oven/ tandoor for cooking which led to the tradition of 'Sanjha Chulha'. He claimed that word 'Sanjha Chulha' became a household word, reinforcing which, a television series of the same name was telecasted on Doordarshan in the year 1990. Defendant states that Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 7 of 512026.04.11 17:42:24 +0530 they found the use of word 'Sanjha Chulha' appropriate for their restaurant at the time of inception of the restaurant in 1992 and adopted the same as their tradename.
13. Besides claiming prior use protection under Section 34 of Trademarks Act, defendant relied on it being a bona fide concurrent user of the trade name and claimed protection under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act 1999 for above adoption and retention of trademark.
14. Defendant asserts that the first restaurants of defendant started from a rented premises located at Shop No. 146, Sector- 16A, Faridabad, Haryana 122007. However, defendants revenue grew rapidly since adoption and thereafter around the year 1996, Defendants shifted to its own premises at Booth/Shop No. 12, Sector-19, Part-II Market, Faridabad, Haryana 122007. Defendant relies on the possession certficate dated May 27, 1996 issued by District Town Planner, Faridabad, Copy of certificate issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation certifying defendant's establishment within the purview of Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act with effect from September 23, 1997 alongwith reviews of Defendant's customers as proofs in their favour.
15. Defendant claims that in the year 2000, the business of defendant received more growth as a result of which, defendant took on rent two neighboring premises located at Booth/Shop No. 14 and 16, Sector-19, Part-II Market, Faridabad, Haryana 122007. Defendant expanded its business and extended it into one big outlet as a result of the above growth. In the year 2011, Defendant purchased one of the neighboring premises, which was earlier rented i.e. Booth/Shop No. 16, Sector-19, Part-II Market, Faridabad, Haryana 122007. Reliance on covayence deed dated December 1, 2011 is placed to show such occupation Digitally Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Page 8 of 51 BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:42:43 +0530 for the purpose of running the restarurant.
16. Defendant claims to have ventured into corporate catering business in the year 2000 by establishing an outlet at H-14/6, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon 122008. Due to onset of global recession in the year 2007-2008, the said outlet was closed. Defendant claims reliance upon the sale deed dated November 13, 2000 w.r.t. H-14/6, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon 122008 in the name of wifes of defendant no. 2 and 3 to show that the business being carried out in name of SANJHA CHULHA.
17. Defendant claims that in the year 2007-2008 premises located at Village Bhopani, Greater Faridabad was leased where from defendant commenced SANJHA CHULHA BAKERS in order to cater to corporate snacks business which business flourished reasonably till the year 2020 however on account of Covid-19 pandemic, the business was closed. Reliance on lease deed dated August 19, 2009 entered by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 with respect to above outlet is placed.
18. Defendant expanded their business in the year 2013, and opened a Branch at Shop No 55, HUDA Market, Sector 46, Faridabad, Haryana - 121001 which outlet was shifted in the year 2022 to Shop No 71, HUDA Market, Sector 46, Faridabad, Haryana - 121001.
19. Defendant claims the above outlet thrived from the year 2012 onwards and defendants have been commanding a turnover of over Rs. 1 crores per annum from the outlets. Defendant states that its turnover for the financial year 2021-2022 alone was more than Rs. 5.5 crores which is three times the turnover of the plaintiff's for the last 5 years, which turnover of plaintiff is not even certified by any Chartered Accountant. Defendant relied on the certificate issued by the Charted Accountant evidencing Digitally Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Page 9 of 51 BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:42:47 +0530 turnover of the Defendant from the year 2012-2013 till 2021- 2022. Defendant further relied on the Specimen of invoice issued to one of its customer as well.
20. Defendant states that its business is registered under the provisions of GST and defendants have been regularly filing GST returns with the appropriate Authorities. The copies of GST certificate along with GST returns are filed from 2017-2018 till 2021-2022 and are relied upon documents by defendant.
21. Defendant states to have obtained necessary License under the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 the copy of which is relied to draw support.
22. Defendant disputed the bona fide of plaintiff in putting up the plaint and challenged its intention by alleging that plaintiff was served with a complete set of documents evidencing use of trade name 'Sanjha Chulha' by defendant since 1992. Defendant claims that plaintiff deliberately refrained to file the said documents, which are in possession of plaintiff and are evidencing uncontroverted use of mark 'Sanjha Chulha' by defendant since 1992.
23. Defendant asserted that plaintiff's claim is barred under Section 33 of Trademarks Act for being filed beyond the period of 5 years (from 2017 till 2022). defendant claimed that plaintiff, despite having clear knowledge, took no action against the defendant deliberately and thus, acquiescenced for a continuous period of use of a registered trademark, despite being aware of use in which context plaintiff shall not be held entitled to oppose the user of defendant's trademark in relation of goods and services it has been used.
24. Defendant points to it holding the registration under Class 30 under application No. 1266381 which continued in Digitally NIRJA Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha signed by NIRJA BHATIA Page 10 of 51 BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:42:52 +0530 defendant's name, till the date of application for rectification having been filed on 01.08.2018. Defendant states that since it did not renew the mark, once it was due for renewal, the mark was renewed from the register.
25. In order to buttress the claim of prior user, defendant relied on application No. 3217600 for registration of trademark in Class 30 vide date 23.03.2016 with a categorical user claim since 01.04.1992. Defendant's application is accepted by Registrar of Trademarks and published in trademark journal No. 1815 dated 18.09.2017 against which plaintiff filed opposition on 11.11.2017 which opposition is pending with the Registrar of Trademarks.
26. Defendant states that in order to protect its rights, defendant has filed opposition against plaintiff's application No. 2110609 dated 18.04.2018 where the defendant served the plaintiff with complete set of documents, evidencing use of mark 'Sanjha Chulha' on 11.10.2019 showing clear user claim since 1992.
27. Defendant finds fault with plaintiff's claim for damages and states that suit is filed merely on invoices and sales figure which do not find any backing by way of any certificate by Chartered Accountant. Defendant challenges the plaintiff's claim of enjoying a well-known trademark as opposed to that of defendant by contrasting the plaintiff's sales figure of Rs. 26 lacs per annum, with sales figure of Rs. 5.55 crore per annum.
Defendant relies on bar of Section 11 (6) of Trademarks Act and states that the attempt of filing of present suit is backed by plaintiff's devious intention to nip any competition in bud.
28. Defendant submits that the artistic work of both parties are distinguishable and there is no similarity between the two Digitally signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 11 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:42:56 +0530 artworks. Defendant denied any infringement under section 51 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 alleging it a figment of imagination of plaintiff.
29. Defendant states that the claim raised by plaintiff are boisterous. Defendant asserts that there is no question of any confusion being caused to the minds of consumers creating any nexus between plaintiff's use of trade mark and that of defendant as plaintiff has failed to prove any goodwill outside the territory of New Delhi. The defendants have conducted their business in State of Haryana in Faridabad District only, where plaintiff has no presence. Defendants state that as per plaintiff's own statement its activities are confined to the localities of Kailash Colony, C.R. Park and Defence Colony only.
30. Defendant disputes that plaintiff ever engaged or indulged in any promotional activities and investment of time and money. The claim of plaintiff to above extent is called in question as ludicrous.
31. Defendant disputes that plaintiff had achieved overwhelming success and states that the plaintiff has avoided to state any proof of sales upon certificate from its Chartered Accountant or has shared evidence to showcase its purported promotional activities and investment of time and money.
32. Defendant denies that plaintiff carried out any advertisement least a substantial number by print media or through leading newspapers, magazines, Internet, hoardings, display boards, trade literature or trade novels etc. and states that the claim of plaintiff is not supported with even a shred of evidence.
33. Defendant asserts that plaintiff's attempt to claim proprietary in the trade mark and begging a secondary meaning Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 12 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:43:00 +0530 through basic internet as such is ridiculous. Defendant states that plaintiff has failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of its claim. Defendant alleged plaintiff's engaged in concealment of material facts by avoiding to detail that defendant's application before Trademark Authorities bearing no. 3217600 was filed with user claim of 1992.
34. Defendant challenges plaintiff's entitlement and claims its pursuit of its proceedings before the Registrar as mala fide. Defendant submits that the plaintiff despite being served with the counter statement on March 16, 2018, as per the Trade Marks Rules 2017, avoided to file evidence under Rule 45 in the opposition proceedings in time. Plaintiff, realizing that the same would lead to abandonment of their opposition, on November 3, 2019, filed an Interlocutory Petition in the opposition to stall the proceedings which all facts have been deliberately concealed.
35. Defendant asserts that plaintiff has pursued the the proceedings against defendant with malice, While admitting to the opposition of application of defendant no. 2110609, Plaintiff avoided to stated that the Answering Defendants filed the opposition with user claim since 1992. Plaintiff deliberately concealed all the documents exchanged between the parties during the course of above opposition proceedings. Defendant asserts that after filing the opposition in the above said proceedings on April 18, 2018, Defendants on November 10, 2018, filed its voluminous evidence of 100 pages substantiating Defendants' use of the mark SANJHA CHULHA since 1992 which all facts have been actively concealed by the Plaintiff.
36. Defendant affirms the non-renewal of trade mark application number 1266381 by them, however, claims the removal of trade mark registration does not deprive the Digitally signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 13 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:04 +0530 Defendants to claim common law rights on the mark. Defendant submits that the act of non renewal of trade mark application would not deprive the defendant to claim concurrent rights over the mark SANJHA CHULHA through its tremendous use since the year 1992.
37. Defendant disputes the service of cease-and-desist notice upon the Defendants as alleged by plaintiff and claims that plaintiff has avoided to file the tracking report of the above purported notice dated April 4, 2021. Defendants submit that Plaintiff at no point of time served any notice on the Defendants which act was in furtherance of Plaintiff's knowledge that the once the notice is served, the Defendants would rely on their user claim of 1992, which fact Plaintiff wanted to conceal from the Hon'ble Court.
38. Defendant claims its presence on e-commerce platform since 2015 and asserts the knowledge of such existence to plaintiff.
Replication
39. Plaintiff responded to the written statement of defendant by filing the replication rebutting the statements made by defendant in the written statement.
40. Plaintiff took preliminary objections stating that Plaintiff's trademark "SANJHA CHULHA" bearing Application no. 5239415 and 1298323 was objected at the time of filing of suit which fact plaintiff mentioned in plaint. However, during the course of the proceedings, the aforementioned mark of the Plaintiff under the Application no. 5239415 and 1298323 has been registered. Plaintiff applied for Legal Proceeding certificate for aforementioned trademark Application and has filed the Copy Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 14 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:08 +0530 of Registration certificate, online status, Form TM-M and acknowledgment receipts on record.
41. Plaintiff claims that the turn over of plaintiff under the trade name and trademark "Sanjha Chulha" for the financial year 2021-2022 is Rs.2.65 Crores and not Rs.26 Lakhs which is mentioned by the defendant wrongly.
42. Plaintiff denied that the suit is misconceived and/ or the process is vitiated warranting dismissal of the suit. The rest of the pleas raised by the defendant on merits were replied para wise. Plaintiff specifically denied the knowledge of the defendants running the business of restaurants and catering since 2017. Plaintiff denied that during the course of opposition proceedings in trademark application no. 2110609, in October 2018, the defendant served to plaintiff a complete set of documents evidencing use for mark "SANJHA CHULHA" since 1992.
43. Plaintiff denied the use of trademark "SANJHA CHULHA" by defendant since 1992. Plaintiff submits that it has disclosed all material facts in the claim and the relevant opposition by defendant are stated by submission of documents appended to plaint.
44. Plaintiff disputed the statement that it has acquiesced the use of trade mark by defendant for continuous period of 5 years as despite being aware of the such use by the defendants, plaintiff did not oppose such use of trademark. Reliance on the law in Marico Limited vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors. [2018 (76) PTC 168 (Delhi)] is raised. Plaintiff denied that defendants are entitled to relief under Section 12 and 33 of the Trademark Act on grounds of honest and concurrent use. Plaintiff alleged that defendant has made a concocted story in the present case as the defendant adopted the impugned trademark of plaintiff to encash the Digitally NIRJA signed by NIRJA BHATIA Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 15 of 51 BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:43:12 +0530 colossal reputation and goodwill enjoyed by plaintiff in the same business since 1986.
45. It is claimed that defendant can not be allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time as while disputing the use of trade mark SANJHA CHULHA by plaintiff alleging tt a generic term, defendant can not claim the adoption and use of the same reliance is made upon Hidustan Emroidery Pills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. K. Ravindra and Co. 1974 (76) BOM LR 146 Plaintiff has denied the statement of defendant of having risen from humble beginning and or having acquired the property bearing no. Shop No. 146, Sector-16A, Faridabad, Haryana 122007 or having commenced or at ventured into corporate catering business from outlet no. of H-14/6, DLF Phase 1, Gurgaon 122008. It is denied that in 2007-08, defendant leased the premises located at Village Bhopani, Greater Faridabad from where they commenced SANJHA CHULHA BAKERS in order to cater to corporate snacks business which business was closed due to COVID-19 in year 2020. The conveyance lease deed relied upon by the defendant is disputed and denied. Plaintiff disputes that defendant has grossed the turn over of more than Rs. 5.5 crores which is three times the turnover of the Plaintiff's for the last 5 year.
46. Plaintiff admitted as matter of record that on 11.02.2004, defendant filed its first application for make SANJHA CHULHA in class 30 under number 1266381. Plaintiff admits as a matter of record that the mark was registered in the name of Defendant No. 1 against which on August 1, 2018 plaintiff filed its application for rectification of the mark. Plaintiff reiterates that the rectification petition was served duly on the defendant through notice sent by the Registrar of Trademarks on 22.07.2019 to Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 16 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:43:16 +0530 which defendant preferred no counter statement/ reply. Plaintiff disputed and denied that under Rule 64 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, as the Registrar did not send a notice on Form O-3 to the Defendant, did not renew the mark and has been arbitrarily removed from Register. Plaintiff claims it a matter of record that defendant challenged the removal of trademark from the register by filing application before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Plaintiff claims as a matter of record that on March 23, 2016, Defendant filed another application for the mark SANJHA CHULHA in Class 30 under number 3217600 with a categorical user claim since April 1, 1992. Plaintiff reiterates as a matter of record that his application was accepted by the Registrar of Trade Marks and published in Trademarks Journal Number 1815 dated September 18, 2017. Plaintiff affirms that on November 5, 2017, Plaintiff filed opposition to the said mark which is still pending with registrar of Trade Marks.
47. Plaintiff denied that during the course of opposition proceedings, in trademark application no. 2110609 on October 11, 2019, Defendant served the Plaintiff with a complete set of documents evidencing use of the mark SANJHA CHULHA by Defendant since the year 1992. Plaintiff denied that it has deliberately refrained from disclosing facts which are material with intention to collect an order.
48. Plaintiff challenges the defendant's claim of operating their business with impugned trademark since 1992 and stated that defendants have failed to produce any evidence to the said effect. Plaintiff alleges that defendant is intending to ride upon plaintiff's good will and because of the adoption of trademark by defendant, plaintiff is suffering tremendously. Plaintiff disputes that the sales figures provided by plaintiff on record are not Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 17 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:20 +0530 backed by certificate of Charted Accountant, and/ or against plaintiff's meager sale figure of Rs. 26 Lakh, defendant's against sale of Rs. 5.5 Cr under the trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' shall be rated high. Plaintiff submits that its sale figures are incorrectly mentioned by defendant whereas plaintiff's actual sales for the year 2021-22 was around Rs. 2.6 crores.
49. Plaintiff disputes that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of misjoinder of cause of action and relies on provisions of section section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
50. Replying to para wise statement to the defendant's written statement, plaintiff disputed each statement and reiterated the assertions made originally in the plaint.
51. As the pleadings are complete, a brief note on the proceedings is recorded.
Note of proceedings.
52. The suit of plaintiff is received before Ld. Predecessor on 18.05.2022, who was pleased to put the matter for consideration as it was supported with an application seeking urgent relief U/o XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Plaintiff's application for grant of Ad-interim injunction was allowed vide detailed order dated 06.06.2022. The matter in the meanwhile was transferred, where the defendant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking revocation of order dated 06.06.2022. Defendant moved another application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. Vide order dated 04.08.2022, defendant's application U/o XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was allowed and Plaintiff's application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 and 2CPC was dismissed. Defendant filed the written statement, Ld. Local Commissioner filed his report dated 04.07.2022. The application for deletion of defendant No. 5 was Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 18 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:24 +0530 allowed to be placed during proceedings dated 17.02.2023, Defendant No. 4 to 6 were deleted from array of parties vide order dated 18.03.2023. Case management hearing was conducted and issues were framed vide above date. Parties were directed to lead their respective evidence. During evidence plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC for filing the documents was allowed vide order dated 31.08.2023. Additional documents were taken on record. Sh. Nand Kishore, partner of plaintiff examined himself as PW1, whereafter PE was closed. During defendant's evidence, defendant moved an application under Order XI Rule 1 (10) & (12) CPC which application was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2024. During the process another application U/s 151 CPC for additional evidence was filed. The said application was dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- vide order dated 25.09.2024. Defendant examined Sh. Inder Sood as DW-1. The DE was closed on 11.12.2024. Both parties exhausted several opportunities for making submissions orally as well by tendering their written submissions with voluminous case laws. After the exhaustive arguments and rebuttal arguments, matter is reserved for judgment.
Issues
53. Vide order dated 18.03.2023 following issues are framed:
"1. Whether plaintiff is the proprietor and prior user of the trade name and trade mark Sanjha Chulha and the logo and whether the plaintiff has exclusivity over the trade mark Sanjha Chulha? OPP
2. Whether defendants no. 1 to 3 have infringed plaintiff's rights by using the trade name and the trade mark Sanjha Chulha and the logo? OPP Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:29 +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 19 of 51
3. Whether the use of the trade name and trade mark Sanjha Chulha and the logo by defendants no. 1 to 3 amounts to passing of? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunctions as prayed?OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rendition of account and damages as prayed?OPP
6. Relief."
54. Before proceedings further, a brief note on the evidence is made.
Plaintiff's Evidence.
55. Sh. Nand Kishore, PW1, tendered his examination by way of affidavit. He exhibited the document as below:
1. The original Teh-Bazaari receipts dt. 26.12.1985, 16.01.1987, 29.01.1987 and 12.06.1989 is Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) (at page no. 19 to 20)
2. The copies of telephone bills for the years 1994 to 2017 raised by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Reliance and Airtle in the name of the plaintiff are Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) (at page no. 21 to
58).
3. Copies of all certificates of Trademarks granted under applications numbers 766554, 1040537, 1006350, 1040539, 1006351, 1298323, 5239415 and 5514907 and a representation of the plaintiffs trademark are Marked as Mark PW1/3 (colly.) (at page no. 59 to 90)
4. Print out of Income Tax Returns and acknowledgement for the assessment years 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 are exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 (colly.) (at page no. 91 to 327) Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:32 +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 20 of 51
5. Copy of article published in the Hindustan Times is hereby tendered in evidence are marked as Mark PW1/5. (at page no. 328 to 329)
6. Copy of certificate of excellence for India Hospitality and Tourism presented to the plaintiff by Mrs. Shilpa Shetty Kundra on 24.10.2018 on behalf of the Hope Communication (Research) along with photographs of the occasion are are marked as Mark PW1/6 (colly.) (at page no. 330 to 332)
7. Copy of certificate of Chatkara on behalf of 98.3 Radio Mirchi sponsored by Hajmola is marked as Mark PW1/7. (at page no.
333)
8. The printouts of the extract of status of Application nos.
1266381, 3217600, 3217601 and 4784430 are marked as Mark PW1/8. (colly.) (at page no. 334 to 337)
9. Copy of rectification petition dt. 01.08.2018 in relation to trademark application no. 1266381 is marked as Mark PW1/9. (at page no. 338 to 355)
10. Copy of legal notice dt. 04.04.2021 is marked as Mark PW1/10. (at page no. 356 to 358)
11. Copy of legal notice dt. 25.04.2022 is marked as Mark PW1/11. (at page no. 359 to 364)
12. Copy of legal notice dt. 10.05.2022 is marked as Mark PW1/12. (at page no. 365 to 372)
13. Copy of Menu of the plaintiff restaurant is marked as Mark PW1/13. (at page no. 373 to 375)
14. Printout of the plaintiffs home page on the Zomato App is marked as Mark PW1/14. (at page no. 376)
15. Printout of the home page of Domino's Mc Donalds and Haldirams situated at Nehru Place, Greater Kailash-II and Lajpat Nagar is marked as Mark PW1/15. (at page no. 377 to 379) BHATIASanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 21 of 51 Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:37 +0530
16. Printout of the defendant home page on the Zomato App is marked as Mark PW1/16. (at page no. 380 to 383) Defendant's Evidence.
56. Sh. Inder sood, DW1, tendered his examination along with following documents:
(1) Power of attorney dated 17.06.2022 is Ex.DW1/1 (OSR). (2) Partnership deed dated 17.12.2003 is not filed. Ex.DW1/2 stands de-exhibited.
(3) Extract of news / scripts / literatures taken from the internet is Ex.DW1/3 (Colly) running into 20 pages (Page no. 5 to 6 is extract of literature, Page no. 7 to 11 is news, Page no. 12 to 27 is literature) (4) Possession certificate dated 27.05.1996 issued by District Town Planner is Ex.DW1/4 (OSR).
(5) Certificate issued by the ESIC stating my firms establishment fall within the purview of Section 1 (5) of the ESI Act is Ex.DW1/5.
(6) Few reviews dated 27.04.1998, 13.04.1998 ( two documents) and 01.02.1999 of my firms customers are tendered as Ex.DW1/6 (OSR).
(7) Income Tax Assessment order of Assement year 2005-06 is not filed. Ex.DW1/7 stands de-exhibited. (8) Demand notice is not filed. Ex.DW1/8 stands de-exhibited. (9) Conveyance Deed dated 02, May 2012 is Ex.DW1/9 (OSR). (10) Sale deed dated 13.11.2000 in favour of my wife and my sister in law is Mark A. Ex.DW1/10 stands de-exhibited as the original is not on record.
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:43:41 +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 22 of 51 (11) Certificates issued by Punjab national Bank, SBI that my firms is maintaining acccount in respective years 2000 and 2003 is Ex.DW1/11 (Colly) (OSR) (12) Account ledger inquiry is not filed. Ex.DW1/12 stands de- exhibited.
(13) Lease deed dated 19.08.2009 entered by me and my brother is Ex.DW1/13 (OSR) Page 59 to 65 (14) Rent Agreement dated 04.09.2013 w.r.t. premises located at Shop No. 55, Sector 46, Huda Market, Faridabad is not filed. Ex.DW1/14 stands de-exhibited.
(15) Specimen of one such invoice issued by defendant no. 1 is Ex.DW1/15.
(16) My firm's GST certificate along with GST returns filed by my firm from 2017-18 till 2021-22 is Ex.DW1/16 (colly). (Page no. 69 to 100).
(17) Necessary license under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 is Ex.DW1/17.
(18) Restaurant's Menu Card ciruculated in the year 2017-18 is Ex.DW1/17 A. (19) Restaurant's current Menu Card not filed. Ex.DW1/18 stands de-exibited.
(20) Few photographs of both my restaurants located in Sector 19 and Sector 46 is not filed. Ex.DW1/19 stands de-exhibited.
(21) Registration Certificate that was granted to my firm under number 1266381 is Ex.DW1/20. ( objected to mode ). (22) Relevant documents w.r.t. trade mark application number 3217600 and the opposition filed by the plaintiff as downloaded from the official website of Registrar of Trade marks is Ex.DW1/21 (Colly).
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:45 +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 23 of 51 (23) Relevant documents w.r.t. trade mark application number 2110609 and the opposition filed by the firm as downloaded from the official website of Registrar of Trade marks is Ex.DW1/22 (Colly). ( objected to mode ).
DW-1 was again examined on 25.09.2025 and he tendered the following documents:
(1) List of all the links of various websites wherein the plaintiff is making defamatory statements against my firm is Ex.DW1/23. (2) Sale data of my firm from June 1, 2022 till June 16, 2022 in order to substantiate that each day my firm was losing at least Rs. 50,000/- is Ex.DW1/23 A (OSR).
(3) Statement of expenses incurred by my firm each day in order to run its two outlets is Ex.DW1/24 (OSR). (4) Certificate issued by CA of Defendant no. 1 w.r.t. monthly salary expenses incurred by my firm is Ex.DW1/25 (OSR) (5) Statement of showing total sales with respected to premises located at Shop No. 55, Sector 46, Huda Market, Faridabad from 01.04.2022 to 31.12.2022 is Ex.DW1/26 (OSR)
57. He was cross examined by Sh. Shubhanker Sen, a brief assessment of cross examination of DW1 shall be made in the paras reserve for reasons for the decisions in order to keep the privity in the judgment.
58. Before adverting to the discussion a brief note of arguments made by the counsel is taken note as both the counsel exhausted number of opportunities for rendering their verbose arguments.
Note of arguments
59. Both the parties have exhaustively made their respective arguments as noted against the proceedings dated 24.02.2025, Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally Page 24 of 51 signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:50 +0530 27.03.2025, 23.04.2025, 08.07.2025, 21.08.2025, 20.09.2025, 01.11.2025, 04.12.2025, 12.01.2025. Plaintiff also submitted his written submissions.
Findings
60. Plaintiff's assertion behind the present claim is resting on the foundation of establishing the 'proprietary' of user of 'trademark' against which the issue No. 1 is framed by Ld. Predecessor. Plaintiff also insisted the proprietary in trademark through the registration as well.
61. Plaintiff claimed the entitlement in trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' based on averrment of its use from the year 1986, though plaintiff claims to have commenced the food business in the year 1968. PW-1 during evidence asserted his interest in cooking and claimed that his creative interest to cook up different recipes prompted him to the restaurant business as he decided to bring the old Delhi food delicacies to the realm of South Delhi. The above brought him to conceive the cooking business which ultimately fructified in a restaurant, the humble beginning of which commenced from Teh Bazari in the name of 'Sanjha Chulha'. To prove the above facts, reliance is made vehemently on Ex. PW-1/1 Teh Bazari slips issued by MCD (the mode of exhibition of slips have been objected to during the stage of tendering of documents). The document Ex. PW-1/1 collectively shows Teh Bazari slips dated 26.12.1985, 16.01.1987, 29.01.1987, 12.06.1989 at pages 19-20.
62. In addition to Ex. PW-1/1 (Teh Bazari slips), PW-1 relied on telephone bills (Ex. PW-1/2 colly) (pages 21 to 58), asserting the issuance of bills in its name 'Sanjha Chulha' since 1994 onwards. The reliance further is made on the trademark Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed Page 25 of 51 by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:53 +0530 certificates granted through applications No. 766554, 1040537, 1006350, 1040539, 1006351, 1298323, 523419 and 5514907, which all certificates have been marked collectively as Ex. PW- 1/3 (pages 59 to 90).
63. Since the documents have been proposed by plaintiff as part of evidence, in trial for assertion of proprietary rights, it is, at this stage, requisite to test their strength.
64. Document Ex. PW-1/1 (colly), the Teh Bazari slips (four in number), are stated as originals. While the slips have been proposed in evidence, plaintiff's lack of effort to call any witness with record pertaining to issuance of Teh Bazari in its name as 'Sanjha Chulha' must be observed. Plaintiff made no effort to seek corroboration of the document Ex. PW-1/1 from the MCD i.e. the source authority which issued the same. While a specific objection to the mode of proof against the exhibit is noted, it is pertinent to observe that the documents were put before the witness (PW-1) Sh. Nand Kishore, the alleged recipient of Teh Bazari as on the face of the documents the words 'Sanjha Chulja' appeared inserted later on. Instead, the receipts Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) noted Nand Kishore S/o Jiya Lal as the recipient. The word 'Sanjha Chulha' appears to be inserted somewhere in between already written text which insertion is apparent on bare face of the documents. The said is true for all the above slips. PW-1 was confronted with the above, which he denied, however, made no explanation regarding the change of colour of ink as well as handwriting in which the insertions 'Sanjha Chulha' found place on all four slips. The controversy above could have been easily resolved had plaintiff brought the record or register bearing Teh Bazari record based upon which the document Ex. PW-1/1 was issued. It may be argued that record being decades Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 26 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:43:59 +0530 old would have been destroyed or may not be made available. However, at least, a report from issuing authority could have reflected to positive intentions of plaintiff. By avoiding any step altogether for production of any record showing issuance of Teh Bazari in name of 'Sanjha Chulha'. Plaintiff has allowed to weaken the strength of document Ex. PW-1/1 as the bare perusal of the slips does not show that the Teh Bazari existed in the name of 'Sanjha Chulha', which at the most, could only be assessed in name of Nand Kishore S/o Jiya Lal.
65. Intriguingly, through the plaintiff claims existence of 'Sanjha Chulha' based on Ex. PW-1/1 since 1985, as per its own assertions, the partnership was constituted much later. The partnership admittedly was formed in 1991, and could only be claimed to have been put on paper on 01.04.2001. In continuation of above observation, it is relevant to take note that while the partnership deed dated 01.04.2001 was proposed initially with the bunch of documents filed with the plaint, plaintiff for reasons unexplained did not exhibit the partnership deed as part of the examination affidavit and/ or relied upon the same, which could only be observed from the questions put under cross- examination. Though, it is necessary to take note that though the witness was put through confrontation, the documents were not exhibited which may be an oversight and may not dilute the effect of cross-examination.
66. Reliance is also made on telephone bills which are claimed to have been issued in favour of 'Sanjha Chulha' from 1994 to 2017. The defendant raised objection to the mode of proof of the telephone bills which were collectively Ex. PW-1/2 (pages 21 to 58). At this stage, it is noted that merely marking a document an exhibit would not tantamount to its proof which Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 27 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:44:12 +0530 shall be subjected to assessment upon effect of totaling of evidence. It is noted that the perusal of each page of telephone bills, however, tells a different address than 31, Kailash Colony Market, at which the plaintiff claims itself to be residing. Plaintiff has placed voluminous bills, however, mostly do not confirm to its incorporation its name as 'Sanjha Chulha' and/ or show existence of its functioning as restaurant from the address detailed in the plaint.
67. The law relied upon by plaintiff in Dalgreen Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shaikh Asadur Rahman and others, 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 3284 itself prepounds that despite the elements being admitted, the rights of a party (in the present case the defendant), to subject the document and its contents to cross-examine would not be waived. This observation abundantly clarifies that plaintiff cannot take advantage of defendant's affidavit of admission/ denial to save itself from the rigors of proving the document despite its existence being admitted as plaintiff is still under the burden of proving its substance. A mark of exhibit which would be made at the stage of admission/ denial itself, would not save the document from rigors of cross-examination as it would still be open for assessment to the response by witness in cross-examination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court detailed the above intention in para 12. The law finds no deviation from what has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple and AR, (2003) 8 SCC 752 . Rather, the observations are showing continuity. It is only keeping in view the intent of the Commercial Courts Act, which curtails the procedure while receiving the supporting documents from parties. Moreover, by admitting the contents of the document would not automatically amount to admitting the truth behind the contents. The said Digitally signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 28 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:44:15 +0530 observation also finds place in the law laid in Life Insurance Corporation of India and another Vs. Rampal Singh, 2010 (4) SCC 491, relied by the defendant. The observations are excerpted below:
"31.Under the Law of Evidence also, it is necessary that contents of documents are required to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. At the most, admission of documents may amount to admission of contents but not its truth. Documents having not been produced and marked as required under the Evidence Act cannot be relied upon by the Court. Contents of the document cannot be proved by merely filing in a court."
68. The reading of the above makes it amply clear that even if the writing on the document is admitted, the plaintiff would still be burdened to prove the truth behind the writing.
69. Merely for the reason that defendant admits that the application for registration finds mention of user claim stated by plaintiff w.e.f 01.01.1986, plaintiff will not be absolved of proving the fact of the said user from the claimed date, as in view of law relied upon by both sides, it needs to be construed that while a document remains admitted with the writing, the truth behind such writing must be proved. Plaintiff merely based on the admission of its filing the application for registration would not be absolved to prove the fact of user of the trademark w.e.f 01.01.1986 as is being claimed.
70. It is in light of the above observations the application of the remaining judgments on this issue which are filed by defendant are now assessed as defendant to counter the plea of him being bound by the plea made in affidavit of admission/ denial filed under Order XI Rule 4 of Commercial Courts Act has proposed to counter the plaintiff through laws in Sonu @ Amar Vs. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570; Kundan Singh Vs. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 13647; Amit Khosla Vs. Sunita Khosla, CM(M) 1134.2017 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court DOD 13.10.2017 . At the outset, it is Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 29 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:44:19 +0530 taken note that the judgments relied do not provide precedent and are based largely upon the assessment of in cases arising out of criminal jurisdiction. The jurisprudence for assessment of evidence in a criminal case is diametrically different and hence except Venkatachalla Gounder (supra), no other judgment offers support to defendant.
71. Reverting to original discussions, it is observed that significant reliance is placed in order to claim proprietorship under the trademark on applications No. 766554, 1040537, 1006350, 1040539, 1006351, 1298323, 523419 and 5514907 (Ex. PW-1/3 colly). Plaintiff has detailed the same in a tabulated chart and it is useful, at this stage, to extract the details in the above mode:
SN Applicat Trademar Status Class Goods Date of ion no k Application 1 766554 SANJHA Registered 29 Meat, Fish, Mughlai 19.08.1997 CHULHA Indian, Chinese as (LABLE) Tandoori Chicken Tikka.
Sekh Kabab, Butter Chicken, Dal 2 1040537 SANJHA Registered 29 Preserved And Ready to 30.08.2001 CHULHA Eat. I (LABLE) Meat, Fish, Poultry, Mughlai, Indian, Chinese as Tandoori Chicken, Tikka, Sekh Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken and Non- Vegetarian and Vegetarian Packed Foods 3 1006350 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, 30.04.2001 CHULHA Letter Heads, Visiting (LABLE) Cards, Bill Books, Cardboard and Cardboard Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu Cards, Stationery 4 1040539 SANJHA Registered 16 Paper and Paper Articles, 30.08.2001 CHULHA Letter Heads, Visiting (LABLE) Cards, Bill Books, Cardboard and Cardboard Articles, Printed Matter, Newspaper, Menu Cards, Stationery 5 1006351 SANJHA Registered 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, 30.08.2001 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 30 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2026.04.11 17:44:24 +0530 CHULHA Sugar, (LABLE) Rice, Tapioca, Sago, Coffee Substitutes, Flour and Flour Preparations Made from Cereals, Bread, Biscuits, Cake, Pastry and Confectionery, Ices, and All Other Ready Food for Human Consumption 6 4581878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel and Restaurants, 30.04.2001 CHULHA Food (LABLE) Services, Catering Services 7 5239415 SANJHA Objected 29 Preserved, Dried and 08.12.2021 CHULH Ready A to Eat Meat, Fish, Poultry, (WORD Pickle, Mughlai, Indian, MARK) Chinese as Tandoori Chicken, Tikk:a, Sekh Kabab, Butter, Butter Chicken Jellies, Jams, Fruit Sauces: Eggs, Milk and Milk Products: Edible Oils, Fats Foods and Non- Vegetarian and Vegetarian Cooked Packed Foods 8 5239416 SANJHA Objected 30 Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, CHULH Sugar, A Rice, Tapioca Sago, (WORD Coffee MARK) Substitutes, Flour and Preparation Made from Cereals, Bread, Biscuits, Cake, Pastry and Confectionery, Ices, Ready Food for Human Consumption 9 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel Restaurant and 5239417 CHULH Food, Beverage and Food A Catering Seivices, (WORD Namely, Providing of MARK) Food and Beverages for Consumption on and off the Premises. 10 458I878 SANJHA Objected 43 Hotel And Restaurants, CHULH Food Services, Catering A Services (LABEL) 11 SANJHA Opposed 43 Hotels And Restaurants, 2110609 CHULH Providing Food And A Drink, Take Away Foods, (LABEL) Temporary Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by NIRJA Page 31 of 51 NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date: 2026.04.11 17:44:28 +0530 Accommodations Services. 12 1298323 SANJHA Opposed 42 Hotal and Restaurants, 26.07.2004 CHULH Providing Food and A Drink Take Away Foods, (LABEL) Temporary Accommodation
72. While the defendant does not dispute the above registrations, defendant vehemently argues against the exclusive dominance against the registration claiming that the mark 'Sanjha Chulha' being 'generic', is incapable of being monopolized at the hands of plaintiff. Vehement reliance has been placed upon the law laid in Inder Raj Sahni Vs. Neha Vs. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3341 ;
Amaravathi Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hotel Grand Karaikudi, C. S. No. 34 of 2021 passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court ; Goenka Institute of Education & Research Vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1691; Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, (2018) 9 SCC 183, to highlight the above arguments.
73. However, plaintiff countered the above arguments of defendant by relying on Automatic Electric Vs. R. K. Dhawan and ors., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 27 (para 16); Aktibolaget Volvo and ors Vs. R. Venkatachalam and anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 226 and Sunil Mittal and anr. Vs. Darzi on Call, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7934, to claim that as defendant had himself applied for the registration of tradename 'Sanjha Chulha', he now must not be allowed to claim its generic nature as a defence. Counsel for plaintiff read over the relevant observations to buttress the arguments.
74. Before adverting to discuss the legality of the argument above, it is requisite to observe that the plaintiff in relying on Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 32 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:44:32 +0530 above case laws did not doubt a bit that the trade name indeed is generic in nature.
75. During cross-examination, PW-1 Sh. Nand Kishore was inquired about the origin of trade name, to which he claimed that his wife 'suggested' to him to keep the name of 'Sanjha Chulha', offered no further elaboration, behind the inspiration. On the other hand, plaintiff doubted the defendant in being inspired by an old tradition or practice of women making food through common oven and/ or such practice being shown on TV series of same name in 1990 for adopting the trade name 'Sanjha Chulha'. Defendant asserted of him having learnt of the practice of women cooking through one common oven being in vogue from the time of Guru Nanak Dev Ji where the village women would use a common oven/ tandoor, which then was named as 'Sanjha' (common) 'Chulha' (oven/ tandoor). He detailed his inspiration for adoption of above trade name was from a teleseries of same name which was put on broadcast in 1990s on Doordarshan. Though, plaintiff impugned the statements, plaintiff could not bring any evidence to suggest the above statements were false. It may be argued from plaintiff's perspective that the defendant shall bear the burden of above assertion. Which argument may be valid. However, still the same test if applied to plaintiff, he must also have to be subjected to such test of proof. In context of above contrasting arguments, what is lost sight of is relevance of argument for raising such doubt. Though the plaintiff negated the assertion of defendant in finding inspiration of trade name from an independent source, plaintiff carried the burden that defendant adopted the trade name in an attempt to seek credit from plaintiff's already established trade name.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:44:36
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 33 of 51
76. Plaintiff doubted defendant's adoption of trade name/ trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' being mala fide and relied upon observations of Hon'ble Higher Courts in Sunil Mittal (supra) (paras 15 to 18, 21, 22, 25, 33 and 36) ; Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Make My Travel (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10638 (paras 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21 & 27) ; Evergreen Sweet House Vs. JV Evergreen Sweets and Treats and ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 9005 (paras 4.2, 7.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.6, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 & 26); Wockhardt Limited Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and anr., (2018) 18 SCC 346 (paras 8 &
9), to highlight the argument.
77. The argument above presents two pronged submissions. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's adoption of trademark 'Sanjha Chulha', in fact, was inspired by plaintiff's trademark and thus, constituted an act of infringement as well as passing- off, as defendant with malicious and mischievous intention, intended to capitalize on plaintiff's reputation for garnering profits. It also is claimed through the above argument that the defendant, instead of having been inspired by the words 'Sanjha Chulha' from a teleseries, has made a false statement of such inspiration. The plaintiff was required to establish the substance of both above statements. It is noted that except claiming that the statement of adopting the trade name 'Sanjha Chulha' based on inspiration from the teleseries and or the practice is a false claim, plaintiff brought no counter material to establish the substance of the arguments.
78. To prove that the adoption of trade name 'Sanjha Chulha' by defendant is an act of mala fide, plaintiff needed more support than mere allegation. It is noted that plaintiff made no further attempt on the above. As a consequence, plaintiff could not show Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha BHATIA Page 34 of 51 BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:44:40 +0530 that the adoption of trade name by defendant was mala fide and/ or was to be viewed from the observations made in the law laid in Sunil Mittal (supra), Make My Trip (supra), Evergreen Sweets (supra) and Wockhardt Limited (supra), as had been argued.
79. The other element of arguments arise from plaintiff's claim of proprietary in the trademark 'Sanjha Chulha', which rests on the claim of registrations. Plaintiff stated that it held registration in Class 29, 16 and 30 at the time of filing of the suit against its applications No. 766554 (label, Class 29), 1040537 (label, Class 29), 1006350 (label, Class 16), 1040539 (label, Class 16), 1006351 (label, Class 30). Invoking Anti-Dissection Rule as laid under Section 17 of Trademarks Act, plaintiff's counsel asserted the entitlement to the entire trademark with trade name 'Sanjha Chulha'. Before adverting to discuss the substance of the merit of above, it is useful, at this stage, to take note of the provision as provided in the statutory framework of Trademarks Act, 1999, which is excerpted as below:
"17. Effect of registration of parts of a mark.--(1) When a trade mark consists of several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive right to the use of the trade mark taken as a whole.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a trade mark--
(a) contains any part--
(i) which is not the subject of a separate application by the proprietor for registration as a trade mark; or15
(ii) which is not separately registered by the proprietor as a trade mark; or
(b) contains any matter which is common to the trade or is otherwise of a non-distinctive character, the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade mark so registered."
80. The Anti-Dissection Rule as laid through Section 17 is subjected to discussions during the observations made by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 35 of 51 Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:44:45 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Karanveer Singh Chharbra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701, and are noted for gaining insight. The observation in para 31.5 are referenced as below:
"In the case of composite marks - those contained multiple elements, such as words and logos - the overall impression created by the mark is relevant. However, proprietors cannot claim exclusive rights over individual components, particularly, non-distinctive or descriptive elements. Courts have often required disclaimers of such generic parts at the time of registration. For instance, in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks24, the registration of "Diamond T" in a diamond-shaped logo was granted, but the word "Diamond" was required to be disclaimed due to its non-distinctiveness."
81. The expressions above, counters contrary arguments presented by the plaintiff. While it is noted that the argument of defence in light of Aktibolaget Volvo (supra), Kei Industries Limited Vs. Raman Kwatra and anr, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1459, and Automatic Electric (supra), may be limited, still the argument does not absolve plaintiff to show existence of right to claim against an unregistered part of trademark where such part falls within the domain of Section 17(2) of Trademarks Act. In essence, while the plaintiff undisputedly hold registration of label and logo mark, it cannot claim exclusivity to trade name 'Sanjha Chulha'.
82. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied on the prior use doctrine to oust the claim of defendant for trade name 'word mark Sanjha Chulha'. The assertion stems from the argument, pleading for remedy of passing-off for which reliance is made on para 12, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 27 of Make My Trip (supra), and on law laid in Wockhardt Limited (supra) and Evergreen Sweets (supra).
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:44:49
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 36 of 51
83. In order to establish its proprietary rights on the trademark 'Sanjha Chulha' plaintiff relied on its user claim since 1986. Counsel for plaintiff claimed right of retrospectivity in terms of the user claim based on the application. However, her argument could not find complete support from statutory framework emerging from Section 23 of the Act. The mandate of the provision though is clear, reliance still is placed on Worknest Business Center LLP and anr. Vs. Worknests, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1678; Commissioner, Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd and ors., (2011) 14 SCC 254 ; Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2007) 3 SCC 780; Wockhardt Vs. Eden (supra).
84. The statute though details the claim on registered trade mark from the date on which the application for such registration is made, it still does support plaintiff's arguments of retrospectively establishing the right to trade mark from the date of 'user claim', stated in application. In light of mandate of Section 23 of the Act, now the document Ex. PW-1/3 colly (the registration certificates) are read. The Ex. PW-1/3 (colly) showed application No. 766554 under Class 29 as the earliest application having been made on 29.08.1997. In terms of Section 23 of the Act, plaintiff hence could show the available registration to its label mark 'Sanjha Chulha' in Class 29, finding registered since 19.08.1997. It is noted that application No. 1040537, 106350, 1040539, 1006351 in Class 29, 30 and 16 respectively are all subsequent to the above date of 19.08.1997 as are applied on 30.08.2001, 30.04.2001, 30.08.2001, 30.04.2001 respectively.
85. Intriguingly, in all the above applications, plaintiff narrates different dates against the user claims. Plaintiff's trademark application No. 766554 shows registration date as Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 37 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:44:53 +0530 19.08.1997, wherein plaintiff detailed the user claim since 31.01.1991; application No. 1040537 shows registration date as 30.08.2001 against user detail of 01.01.1987; application No. 1006350 with registration date of 30.04.2001 shows user detail from 01.01.1986; application No. 1040539 against registration date 30.08.2001 shows user detail as 01.01.1987; application No. 1006351 against registration date of 30.04.2001 shows user details as 01.01.1986; application No. 1298323 against registration date 26.07.2004 shows user detail as 01.01.1987.
Plaintiff has been inconsistent in claiming user date for which no reason is detailed during the trial or course of the proceedings.
86. Before adverting to discussion on the effect of above, at this stage, I find it pertinent to take note of the observations in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court noted below:
"3. At the heart of trademark law lies the foundational principle that there must be no likelihood of confusion in the mind of the average consumer. In cases involving composite marks, it is not necessary that the impugned mark replicate the original in its entirety; even partial imitation may amount to infringement or passing off if it evokes an association with the registered or prior-used mark in the consumer's mind.
4. However, the application of this principle is nuanced. Courts are not expected to adopt a mechanical, side-by-side comparison of the marks. Rather, judicial scrutiny is guided by interpretative doctrines such as the anti-dissection rule and the doctrine of the dominant mark, inter alia, other well-established tests. Although these principles are frequently applied in tandem, they do not always align perfectly, and courts have differed in their application depending on the specific facts and context of each case."
87. The observation of Hon'ble High Court in Inder Raj Sahni Vs. Neha (supra), at this stage, gains significance, the relevant of which is excerpted as below:
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:44:58 +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 38 of 51 "45. It is well settled that not all forms of use of a mark amount to "use" in the legal sense contemplated under trade mark law. To give rise to protectable rights, such use must be of a kind that identifies the source of the goods and serves to distinguish them from those of others-- a concept often referred to by courts as "use in the trade mark sense".
The usage must manifest in the public domain and not remain confined to internal documentation or preparatory business activity. Trade mark rights do not arise in abstract or as we say, the law does not confer proprietary rights in a vacuum; rather, those rights accrue through tangible trading and commercial activities that identify origin of products or services to the consumers.3 It is through such market- facing activities that a mark gains its distinctiveness, functions as a source-identifier and acquires enforceable proprietary character. Moreover, sporadic, incidental, or isolated use, particularly when not directed toward the market or divorced from actual commercial engagement, cannot qualify as trade mark use in law.
46. The mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does not, by itself, constitute use in the trade mark sense. However, it is equally well recognised that many brands derive their commercial identity through consistent and public-facing use of their trading name, which, over time, may acquire the same source-identifying function as a conventional trade-mark. Courts have recognised that, in appropriate cases, a trading name may itself function as a badge of origin-- capable of establishing goodwill and proprietary association, particularly when supported by corroborative evidence such as sales, advertising and public recognition. This principle has been elucidated in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah4, wherein the Supreme Court held that a trading name used consistently in the course of trade may acquire goodwill and be protectable under the common law doctrine of passing off."
88. While discussing the above, Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that even where plaintiff's proprietorship stands established by virtue of Statutory Registration under Section 28(1) of Trademarks Act, which confers an exclusive right to use the mark in specified goods, the issue does not conclude only with registrations.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11
17:45:02
+0530
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 39 of 51
89. The law in respect of passing-off has been settled in various cases, relevant being Make My Trip (supra); Wockhardt Limited (supra); and Evergreen Sweets (supra).
Whether the plaintiff is prior user and prior adoptor of trademark
90. Undoubtedly, though, the first registration of label mark in plaintiff's favour is imparted on 19.08.1997. However, mere grant of registration with effect from the said date would not be sufficient to show prior user. The award of registration certificate and use of trademark are different elements.
91. Out of all the 16 documents exhibited by plaintiff during examination, except Ex. PW-1/1 (Teh Bazari slips) and Ex. PW- 1/2 (telephone bills), no other document shown is of the same timeline (the veracity of Teh Bazari slips (Ex. PW-1/1) has already been discussed in detail and discussion is not repeated for the sake of brevity). The telephone bills which are filed from the period 1994 are showing an inconsistent statement of facts. The initial bills, though are in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar, proprietor of Sanjha Chulha, do not find mention of the address of A-31, Kailash Colony, against which the plaintiff claims to be registered. PW-1, who was cross-examined in detail, could not show the registration of partnership prior to 1997 despite claiming the existence of partnership from the year 1990 onwards. The conduct of plaintiff in not presenting the registered deed of partnership firm of 01.04.2001 has been discussed above and is not reproduced. The plaintiff did not bring any document for the relevant time except the registration certificates to claim the user of the trademark. The documents relied heavily by plaintiff such as Ex. PW-1/5 (undated article published in Hindustan Times), Ex. PW-1/6 (Excellence Certificate for India Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed Page 40 of 51 by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:45:06 +0530 Hospitality and Tourism), Ex. PW-1/7 (undated certificate of Chatkara), are insufficient. Plaintiff's documents predominantly are of period 2017-18 i.e. of the time when the contest between the parties pertaining to the trademark started building up. Plaintiff's reliance to ITRs and acknowledgment for assessment years is of same timeline commencing from 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 up till 2023 i.e. the period before filing of the suit. It is noted that plaintiff has not examined any independent witness to reflect proper valuation in monetary terms behind the trade name which could exclusively be shown associated with plaintiff. Such lack of plaintiff's efforts shows absence of link between plaintiff and the trade name being exclusive to plaintiff, in other terms no worthwhile evidence to show identification of such trade name 'Sanjha Chulha' exclusively to plaintiff is presented from above documents relied as evidence. The source identification to product is a pre-requisite for claiming a remedy of passing-off as is laid in Inder Raj Sahni (supra) and the relevant is excerpted as below:
"46. The mere inclusion of a mark in a trading name does not, by itself, constitute use in the trade mark sense. However, it is equally well recognised that many brands derive their commercial identity through consistent and public-facing use of their trading name, which, over time, may acquire the same source-identifying function as a conventional trade-mark. Courts have recognised that, in appropriate cases, a trading name may itself function as a badge of origin-- capable of establishing goodwill and proprietary association, particularly when supported by corroborative evidence such as sales, advertising and public recognition. This principle has been elucidated in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah4, wherein the Supreme Court held that a trading name used consistently in the course of trade may acquire goodwill and be protectable under the common law doctrine of passing off."
92. To buttress his claim upon composite mark as exclusive user, plaintiff relying on the above law, presented two pronged Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed by Page 41 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:45:10 +0530 arguments. At first, it has been argued that actual commercial use of the trademark is not necessary for claiming infringement, which argument is to be read in light of Section 23 of the Act. It is observed that discussion above could show the date of registration in plaintiff's favour from 1997, whereas the use of trademark is claimed from 1986, which user, plaintiff proposed to establish on Teh Bazari slips and from above discussion, it is held to be not worthy evidence for resting such claim. Plaintiff did not present any pertinent material such as photographs, copies of bills, ITRs, publicity, hoardings and/ or menu to reflect the running of restaurant around the claimed time.
93. The other argument stems from the claim wherein plaintiff seeks to expand against Anti-Dissection Rule in favour of its composite trademark claiming the advantage of registration granted for label and logo mark being applied to trade name. This argument finds conflict with the statement of plaintiff wherein separate applications for trademark registration of trade name 'Sanjha Chulha' were made over later. Plaintiff admits and rather stresses for grant of trade name registration of its mark 'Sanjha Chulha' in Class 30 w.e.f date 30.04.2001. Plaintiff admittedly, made applications for grant of word mark registration 'Sanjha Chulha' vide application 5239415, 5239416, 5239417, 4581878, which all met with resistance from the defendant who filed the objections.
94. Plaintiff's other arguments rests on law laid in Bodhisattva Charitable Trust and Ors. Vs. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, FAO (OS) (Comm) 73/2024, DOD 28.07.2025 urging that the registration of trade name under Class 42 must find extension to Class 43 which is for "hotel, restaurant and food beverages, and food catering services namely Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally signed Page 42 of 51 by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:45:14 +0530 providing food and beverages for consumption on and off the premises", by seeking to draw the parity of analysis made in Mayo Foundation (supra). However, the argument finds no factual support.
95. Plaintiff's claim of Class 42 registration w.e.f 26.07.2004 against application No. 1298323 is certified only on 15.12.2022 i.e. after the filing of the suit. The above fact is subsequent to the filing of the suit and effect of subsequent fact/ registration is deliberated by Hon'ble High Court in detail in Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. Vs. M/s Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, FAO (Comm) 92/2024, DOD 07.08.2025, wherein the observations relevant is culled in para 37 as below:
"37. Nevertheless, the Raj Kumar Case has been thoroughly discussed in Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd v Ashish Bansal And Ors by this court, wherein one of us (J. C Harishankar,) held that the legal position, as clarified in the decision under consideration, is that once a trademark is registered, no suit for infringement ordinarily lies against its proprietor, as registration grants an exclusive right to use the mark under Section 28(1) of the Act. Where both parties possess registered marks, even if deceptively similar, no injunction can ordinarily be sought by one against the other. However, if the defendant‟s registration is relied upon as a defence under Section 30(2)(e), the plaintiff may challenge its validity. In such a case, the court must assess whether the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable, frame an issue accordingly, adjourn the suit for three months to enable the plaintiff to initiate rectification proceedings, and stay the trial if such proceedings are instituted within that period.
It goes on to say that:
"To our mind, if the reasoning in Raj Kumar Prasad is accepted, it would be starkly contradictory to Sections 28(1), 28(3), 29(1) to (4) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act. It would also enable an action for infringement to be brought against the registered proprietor of a trademark, to injunct the use, by such registered proprietor, of the registered trademark, merely by incorporating, in the plaint, a plea regarding invalidity of the defendant's trademark. In Digitally other words, by a mere plea regarding the invalidity of the defendant's trademark, a plaintiff can completely divest a signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA defendant of his right to exclusive use of his registered Date:
2026.04.11 17:45:18 trademark, conferred and sanctified by Sections 28(1), +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 43 of 51 28(3) and 30(2)(e). To our mind, this appears to be impermissible.
(ii) Another serious aspect which appears not to have been considered by the Division Bench while returning the decision in Raj Kumar Prasad, is whether there can at all be a case of infringement by a registered trademark. Notably, there is no reference, in paras 15 to 18 of Raj Kumar Prasad, of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The Division Bench has only referred to Sections 28(1) and 28(3).
Before proceeding to Sections 28(1) and 28(3), which deal with the availability of reliefs against infringement, it has first to be seen whether any infringement can at all be said to exist, where the defendant's trademark is registered. If the statute expressly envisages infringement only by an unregistered trademark, the question of proceeding further to the availability of relief against infringement does not arise. With greatest respect, the Division Bench in Raj Kumar Prasad has not addressed itself to the question of whether there can at all be a case of infringement, where the defendant's trademark is registered.
(iii) To our mind, the answer to this question can only be in the negative. There are no two ways about it. Sections 29(1) and 29(4) clearly envisage infringement only by a person who is not the proprietor of a registered trademark or the permissive user thereof. Section 29 is a self- contained provision insofar as the circumstances in which infringement can be said to exist is concerned. There is no other provision in the Trade Marks Act which envisages any circumstance which could amount to infringement. All circumstances in which infringement could be said to exit are contained in Section 29, and one cannot look outside Section 29, while examining whether infringement has, or has not, taken place."
96. Further the effect of registration under a particular class is then detailed in para 42 in the same judgment of Nakoda Food (supra) and since it is beneficial to take note of the observations, it is noted as below:
"42. In the present case, while the appellants have a valid and subsisting registration for the SALONI mark in Class 30, it has no such registration in other classes. As such, no statutory rights accrue to the appellants in those unregistered classes. Further, the afore-extracted cases settle the law in favour of the registered owner in cases of infringement. Hence, apart from class 30, preparation of Digitally signed by cereals (Namkeen) and seeds, appellants cannot enforce NIRJA NIRJA any statutory right available for infringement against the BHATIA Date:
BHATIA 2026.04.11 respondent."
17:45:22 +0530 Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 44 of 51
97. The discussion above does not leave any scope available to plaintiff to claim retrospective advantage of registration under this claim and/ or to claim advantage of tradename for Class 43 based on grant of registration under Class 42 of Trademarks.
98. While facing the challenges under the above claim, defendant raised defence of bona fide concurrent user claiming under Section 12 of Trademarks Act. The statutory provision is excerpted for the benefit as below:
"12. Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc.
-- In the case of honest concurrent use or of other special circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do, he may permit the registration by more than one proprietor of the trade marks which are identical or similar (whether any such trade mark is already registered or not) in respect of the same or similar goods or services, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as the Registrar may think fit to impose."
99. Defendant relied on the following judgments which are noted as Goenka Institute of Education & Research Vs. Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1691 ; Nandhini Deluxe Vs. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited, (2018) 9 SCC 183; and T. Beena Vs. Seematti, FAO No. 34 of 2020 .
100. Plaintiff however, surprised the defendant during arguments and proposed to restrict the scope of law detailed above by relying on Kei Industries (supra), plaintiff asserted that since the defence of bona fide concurrent user under Section 12 is to be used in a limited context as permitting the Registrar of Trademarks for registering the trademark, which is identical/ similar to an existing trademark, it cannot be raised as a defence. Similar reliance is placed on Abdul Rasul Narallah Virjee & Jalalluddin Nurallah Virjee Vs. Regal Footwear, 2023 SCC Digitally Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 45 of 51 signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:45:26 +0530 OnLine Bom 10 wherein a similar sentiment is echoed. Plaintiff, however, omitted to take note that both observations are stemming from the purview of 'statutory defence'. A statutory defence is validated only against the assertion of a statutory right i.e. pleading infringement. However, this bar of statute cannot apply to a common law remedy of passing-off. The judgment of Kei Industries (supra) hence prohibit the use of provisions of Section 12 to 'a charge of infringement', contrasting to Section 28 of the Trademarks Act. There is no bar for claim of honest use by a user who is prior as such right is validated by statutory scheme of Trademarks Act, specifically under Section 30(3).
101. The facts brought by defendant on record and relied by plaintiff during written submissions show a clear reflection of existence of defendant in realm of restaurant business if not prior then from the year 1998. The defendant exhibited the possession certificate Ex. DW-1/4 dated 27.05.1996 issued by District Town Planner and certificates issued by ESIC as Ex. DW-1/5 (It is noted that Ex. DW-1/5 is objected to mode, however, the objection was removed as complete document was filed against supply of copy to the plaintiff during its tendering). Defendant relied on certain reviews of its services dated 27.04.1998, 13.04.1998, 01.02.1999, by customers which were collectively Ex. DW-1/6. All the documents above were called in question during arguments by plaintiff on the mode of proof. The plaintiff relying on Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, doubted the veracity and claimed that the documents were not duly proved. Though, it is settled law that mere tendering the document would not tantamount to its proof, it is taken note that the plaintiff was duty bound to support the objection raised qua the mode. During final arguments, plaintiff though averred that Digitally signed by Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 46 of 51 NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11 17:45:29 +0530 defendant did not care to bring the persons voicing the reviews against Ex. DW-1/6 nor brought the concerned officials, ignored absence of worthwhile cross-examination to secure the loose ends favourably.
102. The possession certificate is a document in public domain and similar is the status of certificate issued by institutions such as ESIC. The documents are pertaining to existence of restaurant services run by defendant. For the limited purpose, the contents of the documents support defendant in preponderance. Additionally, the defendant in the written statement has relied heavily on his claim of expansion of restaurant services after inception by way of humble beginning in Faridabad at Shop No. 55, Huda Market. Defendant echoed the same statement in examination-in-chief and there is an abysmal cross-examination on the above claim. As per plaintiff, defendant's visibility on food deliveries channels was evident, for which plaintiff sued defendant Nos. 4 to 6, the food delivery channels catering services to defendant in reaching out public domain. Plaintiff could not dispute the conveyance deed favouring defendant dated 02.05.2012 (Ex. DW-1/9), sale deed dated 13.11.2000 in favour of wife and sister-in-law of DW-1 as Ex. DW-1/10 (this document was initially marked a Mark A and was de-exhibited as DW-1/10, however, it is noted that the questions on above documents were put to the witness by plaintiff's counsel which tantamounts to the reliance.) It is noted hence, that the cross-examination is inadequate to traverse the existence of above material.
103. The defendant supported its existence in restaurant services through document Ex. DW-1/11, the certificate issued by Punjab National Bank and State Bank of India in the name of Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Digitally Page 47 of 51 signed by NIRJA NIRJA Date:
BHATIA BHATIA 2026.04.11 17:45:33 +0530 DW-1 partnership firm 'Sanjha Chulha' in respective years of 2000-2003. Defendant relied on lease deed dated 19.08.2009, Ex. DW-1/3 in names of defendants No. 2 and 3 as well as specimen of invoice of defendant Ex. DW-1/15, the GST certificates from the year 2017-18 till 2021-22 as Ex. DW-1/16 collectively, restaurant menu card in the year 2917-18 as Ex. DW-1/17A. The firm's registration certificate Ex. DW-1/20 which all documents, by far, surpassed the material showing the popularity of plaintiff in being identified as 'The Sanjha Chulha' in Delhi/ NCR in business around the same timeline. The aforementioned is further strengthened by comparison of the sales for the same timeline. The comparison is excerpted in below manner through a tabulated chart:
S. No. Financial Year Defendant Turnover (in Plaintiff Sales (in Rs.) Rs.)
1. 2017-2018 4,61,44,653 88,82,640
2. 2018-2019 4,71,52,271 1,38,82,499
3. 2019-2020 5,50,84,178 2,55,34,304
4. 2020-2021 3,74,43,734 2,16,74,258
5. 2021-2022 5,55,80,940 2,65,69,751
104. Apparently, for the defendant outperformed the plaintiff in terms of sale and profit. While the initial figures of sale under discussion in the ad interim order of Ld. Predecessor as well as during the course of arguments before the Hon'ble High Court were modified in Replication, plaintiff made no attempt to prove the actual sale and profit, specially in view of confusion created by subsequent change of statement by way of modification of figures. Document Ex. PW-1/4, ITRs, were not supported by any certificate of Chartered Accountant. Plaintiff did not present author of accounts despite relying itself on the law in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and stressing on the Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date: Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha 2026.04.11 Page 48 of 51 17:45:36 +0530 need of author's cross-examination. The above raised doubts to the claim of plaintiff alleging the defendant being swayed by the popularity of plaintiff's trademark and thus, engaging in passing-
off being established. Plaintiff's documents have already been doubted regarding their evidentiary value and the observation in para 44 is read during arguments by defendant's counsel despite which no rebuttal from the subsequent facts is offered.
105. In view of the discussion above, as plaintiff could not establish either the infringement of its trade name, trademark or establish any passing-off, the application of law laid in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia, 2004 (73) DRJ 647 is not shown attracted. This Court finds no requirement to delve into the defence of acquiescence which is raised by defendant under Section 33 of Trademarks Act nor finds it useful to deal with the controversy of plaintiff's seeking damages in place of the rendition of accounts. With observations above, the plaintiff could not show compliance to the principles of injunction for declaration of right in 'rem', as detailed in Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in following words:
"36.1. As a general rule, a proprietor whose statutory or common law rights are infringed is entitled to seek an injunction to restrain further unlawful use. However, this remedy is not absolute. The considerations governing the grant of injunctions in trademark infringement actions broadly apply to passing off claims as well. That said, a fundamental distinction remains: while a registered proprietor may, upon proving infringement, seek to restrain all use of the infringing mark, a passing off action does not by itself confer an exclusive right. In appropriate cases, the court may mould relief in passing off so as to permit continued use by the defendant, provided it does not result in misrepresentation or deception. 36.2. The grant of injunction - whether for infringement or passing off - is ultimately governed by equitable principles Digitally NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA and is subject to the general framework applicable to signed by BHATIA Date:
proprietary rights. Where actual infringement is 2026.04.11 17:45:40 +0530 established, that alone may justify injunctive relief; a Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 49 of 51 plaintiff is not expected to wait for further acts of defiance. As judicially observed, "the life of a trademark depends upon the promptitude with which it is vindicated."
36.3. The principles laid down in American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.30 continue to guide the Courts while determining interim injunction applications in trademark cases. The following criteria are generally applied:
(i) Serious question to be tried/triable issue: The plaintiff must show a genuine and substantial question fit for trial. It is not necessary to establish a likelihood of success at this stage, but the claim must be more than frivolous, vexatious or speculative.
(ii) Likelihood of confusion/deception: Although a detailed analysis of merits is not warranted at the interlocutory stage, courts may assess the prima facie strength of the case and the probability of consumer confusion or deception.
Where the likelihood of confusion is weak or speculative, interim relief may be declined at the threshold.
(iii) Balance of convenience: The court must weigh the inconvenience or harm that may result to either party from the grant or refusal of injunction. If the refusal would likely result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill or mislead consumers, the balance of convenience may favor granting the injunction.
(iv) Irreparable harm: Where the use of the impugned mark by the defendant may lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity, loss of consumer goodwill, or deception of the public - harms which are inherently difficult to quantify
- the remedy of damages may be inadequate. In such cases, irreparable harm is presumed.
(v) Public interest: In matters involving public health, safety, or widely consumed goods, courts may consider whether the public interest warrants injunctive relief to prevent confusion or deception in the marketplace. 36.4. In conclusion, the grant of an interim injunction in trademark matters requires the court to consider multiple interrelated factors: prima facie case, likelihood of confusion, relative merits of the parties' claims, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm, and the public interest. These considerations operate cumulatively, and the absence of any one of these may be sufficient to decline interim relief."
106. Having regard to above, no further observations are needed. The suit is dismissed with no orders to cost.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 50 of 51
17:45:43
+0530
107. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.04.11
17:45:49
+0530
Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia)
today on 11th April, 2026 District Judge
(Comm. Court) (Digital-07)
South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi
Sanjha Chulha Vs. Sanjha Chulha Page 51 of 51