Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Narayan Tea Company vs M/S. Raj Laxmi Tea Company ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3149/2024
M/s. Narayan Tea Company, Subhash Chowk, Near Bangla Girls
School, Churu Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Bagra S/o Udai
Chand Ji Bagra, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Subhash Chowk, Near
Bangla Girls School, Churu.
----Appellant
Versus
M/s. Raj Laxmi Tea Company, Through Its Owner/proprietor Ram
Gopal Sharma S/o Hanuman Mal, R/o Bhama Katla, Station
Road, Post Sujangarh, District Churu,
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bishnoi for Mr. SK Verma
For Respondent(s) : -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Order 20/01/2026
1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court, Bikaner, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed. Consequently, the appellant has been restrained by way of temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit, from manufacturing or selling similar or parallel products, either directly or through dealers, distributors, representatives, employees or agents, under the trade mark "RAJLAXMI" or packing label wholly or partially similar thereto.
2. Briefly speaking, it is stated that the respondent, a sole proprietorship engaged in the manufacture and sale of tea, is the registered proprietor of the trademark "RAJLAXMI," first registered on 29.04.2008 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The trademark (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:29:38 PM) (Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:33:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB] (2 of 6) [CMA-3149/2024] "RAJLAXMI" forms the essential and dominant feature of the respondent's tea products, which are sold in distinctive packaging featuring unique artistic work, design, colour combination, layout, and get-up.
2.1. Claiming statutory protection over its registered trademark and packing label, the respondent alleged that the appellant was manufacturing and selling tea under the trademark "SHREE RAJLAXMI," which is deceptively similar to "RAJLAXMI," and was also using a packing label closely resembling that of the respondent. On these allegations, the respondent instituted a civil suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against infringement, destruction of infringing material, and compensation of ₹5,01,000/- for alleged losses. Along with the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the appellant from using the impugned trademark or similar packaging during the pendency of the suit.
2.2. The appellant filed a written statement denying infringement and contended that its product was distinct in quality, packaging, and labelling, and that it was lawfully marketing tea under a different brand. It was further asserted that no consumer confusion or deception was caused and that the suit was filed to unlawfully restrain the appellant's business. In additional submissions, the appellant claimed a familial relationship with the respondent, stating that both families had long been engaged in the tea business, and argued that the respondent had concealed this fact. The appellant maintained that its packaging, design, colour scheme, and product details were different, that no (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:29:38 PM) (Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:33:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB] (3 of 6) [CMA-3149/2024] goodwill of the respondent was harmed, and that the suit lacked cause of action and urgency.
2.3. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the learned Commercial Court vide impugned order dated 25.09.2024, the Court allowed the respondent's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from manufacturing or selling tea under the trademark "RAJLAXMI" or any other deceptively similar name or packing label during the pendency of the suit.
3. Hence the instant appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
5. The learned counsel for appellant contends that the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned order granting temporary injunction is contrary to law and the material on record, as the learned Commercial Court failed to properly apply the settled principles governing interim relief. It is argued that the respondent did not establish the essential requirements for grant of a temporary injunction, namely a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss.
5.1. The learned counsel for appellant asserts that appellant is lawfully carrying on business under a distinct trademark, packaging, and label, which differ materially from those of the respondent in terms of quality, presentation, and overall get-up, thereby eliminating any likelihood of consumer confusion or deception. The allegations made by the respondent are stated to be false and misleading.
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:29:38 PM) (Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:33:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB] (4 of 6) [CMA-3149/2024] 5.2. It is further submitted that the learned Commercial Court ignored the appellant's familial relationship with the respondent and the long-standing involvement of both families in the tea business, and that the suit was filed with the intention of restraining the appellant's lawful business. The appellant maintains that its brand "SHREE RAJLAXMI" contains several distinguishing features, including clear display of its own contact details, and that no trademark or packing label of the respondent has been copied.
5.3. The learned counsel for appellant also argues that the respondent failed to prove long and continuous use, goodwill, or reputation, as no cogent evidence such as sales figures, advertising expenditure, or audited documents was produced. The learned Court allegedly granted the injunction without conducting a proper comparative analysis of the rival marks and packaging, relying merely on pleadings without supporting evidence.
6. Impugned order is inter alia premised on the reasoning, that under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, a registered trademark holder enjoys exclusive rights, subject to limitations. While Section 35 allows use of a business name or description, such protection is unavailable if the use of a similar or identical trademark is not bona fide. Where businesses operate under similar trade names such as "RAJLAXMI" and "SHREE RAJLAXMI," the latter must establish bona fide use to claim protection under Section 35. The learned Trial Court held that in the absence of prima facie proof of good faith, such protection cannot be granted. It also observed that mere familial ties do not establish good faith at the stage of deciding a temporary injunction. Without proof of bona fide use, (Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:29:38 PM) (Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:33:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB] (5 of 6) [CMA-3149/2024] the non-applicant (appellant herein) has no right to use the "SHREE RAJLAXMI" mark for similar goods.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, at the outset, in response to a specific query posed by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes that the respondent company had commenced use of the trademark "RAJLAXMI" for tea much prior to the appellant's adoption of the trademark "SHREE RAJLAXMI." The respondent's prior use and established presence in the market under the trademark "RAJLAXMI" is, therefore, an admitted and undisputed fact.
8. Once prior use is acknowledged, the only surviving issue for consideration is whether the appellant's trademark "SHREE RAJLAXMI" can be said to be distinct or sufficiently dissimilar so as to avoid infringement. In this regard, it is well settled that while comparing trademarks, the Court must consider the overall commercial impression, the essential and dominant features of the marks, and the likelihood of confusion in the mind of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
9. In the present case, the dominant and identifying part of both marks is the word "RAJLAXMI." The addition of the word "SHREE,"
which is a common honorific and laudatory prefix, does not materially alter the visual, phonetic, or conceptual identity of the mark. Such prefixes are ordinarily perceived as descriptive or embellishing in nature and do not serve to distinguish the source of goods. To the average consumer, the mark "SHREE RAJLAXMI"
would convey an impression of a variant, extension, or associated product of "RAJLAXMI," rather than an entirely independent origin.
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:29:38 PM) (Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:33:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:3302-DB] (6 of 6) [CMA-3149/2024]
10. Further, both marks are used in respect of the same product, namely tea, which is a fast-moving consumer good purchased frequently by consumers exercising ordinary care. In such circumstances, even a minor similarity is sufficient to give rise to confusion or deception as to the source or affiliation of the goods. Permitting the appellant to rely on the mere addition of "SHREE" would effectively allow it to trade upon the goodwill and reputation already acquired by the respondent.
11. For these reasons, the contention that the trademark "SHREE RAJLAXMI" is not deceptively similar to "RAJLAXMI" is devoid of merit. The appellant's adoption of the impugned mark, subsequent in point of time and substantially identical in its essential features, is clearly likely to cause confusion and cannot be sustained.
12. We may also like to add here, trite it may sound though, that trademark infringement affects not only the disputing parties but also consumers and the general public, due to the risk of confusion and deception. Therefore, public interest must be a paramount consideration in adjudicating trademark infringement cases, a principle consistently upheld in judicial precedents.
13. Accordingly, taking a wholesome view, no grounds for interfere.
14. The appeal is dismissed.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
5-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 23/01/2026 at 04:29:38 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/01/2026 at 08:33:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)