Delhi District Court
Kajaria Ceramics Limited And Anr vs Shri Krishnan Bansal Trading As Bansal ... on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. NIRJA BHATIA DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMM-07), DIGITAL SOUTH-EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM) 156/2024
1. Kajaria Ceramics Limited
Registered office at:
SF-11, Second Floor, JMD Regent Plaza,
Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Village Sikanderpur Ghosi,
Gurgaon - 122001, Haryana
Corporate Office at:
J-1/ (Extension), Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044
Through its authorized signatory Mr. Vinit Kumar
.........Plaintiff No.1
2. Kajaria Plus Private Limited
J-1/B-1(Extension), Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi- 110044
Through its authorized signatory Mr. Sachin Saxena
.........Plaintiff No.2
Versus
Shri Krishnan Bansal
Trading as Bansal
Trading
Near FCI Chulkana Road, Samalkha,
Panipat, Haryana-132101
....Defendant No.1
John Doe/Ashok Kumar
... Defendant No.2
Date of Institution: 13.03.2024
Arguments concluded on : 10.12.2025 Digitally
Date of Judgment: 13.12.2025
signed by
NIRJA
NIRJA BHATIA
BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06
17:56:41
+0545
Page no. 1/21
JUDGMENT
(1) This judgment shall decide the present suit filed for permanent injunction, infringement of registered trademark, infringement of copyright, passing off, claim for damages and rendition of accounts.
(2) This suit is filed by Plaintiff No.1, Kajaria Ceramics Limited, a company incorporated on 20.12.1985 under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Gurgaon and its corporate office at Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi. Sh. Vinit Kumar is the AR of plaintiff through whom plaint is filed.
(3) Present proceedings are instituted against Defendant No.1, M/s Bansal Trading through prop. Shri Krishnan Bansal, having it's registred office Near FCI Chulkana Road,Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana-132101 (4) The plaint is premised on below facts:-
(I) The Plaintiff asserts that it is among India's largest manufacturers of ceramic and vitrified tiles, operating seven manufacturing facilities across the country and exporting its products to more than thirty-five nations. Plaintiff No.1 pleads that over several decades it has built a formidable reputation in the trademark "KAJARIA", a mark which, according to it, has become exclusively associated with its goods and business in the perception of both the trade and the general consuming public. It is pleaded that the mark "KAJARIA", which has been used Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06 17:56:45 +0545 continuously since 1985, enjoys statutory protection under Page no. 2/21 multiple registrations in classes 16, 19, 35, 37 and 41, the particulars whereof have been filed.
(II) Extensively documented advertising, market penetration, online presence and sponsorships in major sporting and public events are relied upon to assert that "KAJARIA" has come to acquire the status of a dominant, market-leading brand in the building materials sector.
(III) Plaintiff No.2, Kajaria Plus Private Limited, incorporated on 01.04.1999, is described as a sister concern of Plaintiff No.1. It is the registered proprietor of the mark "KAJARIA PLUS" in classes 11, 16, 19 and 35. The Plaintiffs aver that they have used the marks "KAJARIA" and "KAJARIA PLUS", together with their various formative variants, stylistic representations, trade dress and logo, extensively throughout India, such that each of these independently functions as a clear indicator of source and distinguishes their goods from those of other traders.
(IV) It is further pleaded that "KAJARIA" was declared a well- known trademark by the Registrar of Trade Marks on 19.02.2024 under application number 816614, thereby entitling it to the highest level of protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
(V) The Plaintiffs also assert proprietorship over a series of domain names incorporating the "Kajaria" brand, including kajariaceramics.com, kajariaexports.com, kajariaworld.com, kajariainfrastructure.com, kajariatilemart.com, kajariaeternity.com and kajariaply.com, all redirecting to the primary corporate website. On the strength of these domain NIRJA names and their established online presence, they plead that the BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Kajaria brand enjoys extensive recognition in both physical and Date: 2026.01.06 15:49:24 +0545 Page no. 3/21 digital marketplaces, and that counterfeit or deceptively similar products pose a serious threat to its reputation, commercial standing and consumer trust.
(V) The Plaintiffs state that in the last week of December 2023, they received information from their sales representatives based in Panipat that Defendant No.1, Krishnan Bansal, trading as Bansal Trading, was stocking and selling counterfeit tile adhesive under the impugned mark "KAJARIA +", a mark they allege is deceptively similar to their registered marks "KAJARIA" and "KAJARIA PLUS". According to the Plaintiffs, repeated attempts were made by their representatives to locate the exact premises of Defendant No.1 at Samalkha, Panipat, but the Defendant had deliberately kept his premises unmarked and concealed.
(VI) Consequently, the Plaintiffs engaged an independent investigator. The investigator contacted Defendant No.1 using the mobile number disclosed by the Defendant and was informed that the Defendant dealt in four to five brands of tile adhesive. Thereafter, the Defendant led the investigator to a warehouse situated near FCI, Chulkana Road, Samalkha, Panipat. The plaint avers that the warehouse contained a substantial quantity of counterfeit tile adhesive bags bearing the mark "KAJARIA +", alongside counterfeit products of other brands. The investigator purchased ten bags (approximately 200 kg) of the counterfeit tile adhesive for a total sum of Rs.1,600/-, paid online directly to the Defendant's mobile-linked account. The Plaintiffs have placed on record photographs of the impugned bags, price details NIRJA BHATIA Digitally signed appearing thereon, and a screenshot of the online payment. by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:49:28 +0545 Page no. 4/21 (V) The Plaintiffs contend that the impugned mark "KAJARIA +" is visually, structurally and phonetically identical or deceptively similar to their registered trademarks. It is pleaded that the mere addition of the plus symbol does not suffice to distinguish the impugned mark and that the Defendant's adoption thereof is evidently calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the goods originate from, or are in some manner endorsed by, the Plaintiffs.
(VI) Stress is laid upon the fact that tile adhesive is a product whose composition and quality are critical for construction integrity; counterfeit adhesive sold under the Plaintiffs' marks not only jeopardises consumer safety but causes direct and irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs' hard-earned goodwill and reputation.
(VII) The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is not an innocent or unwitting actor but a deliberate and systematic infringer. They rely significantly on the large quantity of infringing stock later seized during the execution of the Local Commissioner's proceedings, asserting that the magnitude of the goods discovered demonstrates the organized nature of the Defendant's infringing trade. They plead that the Defendant's conduct constitutes continuous infringement, passing off, unfair competition, misrepresentation, dilution and an unlawful attempt to appropriate the Plaintiffs' business reputation.
(VIII) On the basis of these averments, the Plaintiffs seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from NIRJA manufacturing, selling, stocking or distributing goods bearing the BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA impugned mark "KAJARIA +" or any other mark deceptively Date: 2026.01.06 15:49:31 +0545 Page no. 5/21 similar to their registered marks. They also seek delivery-up of the infringing goods for destruction, rendition of accounts, damages and costs.
Written Statement (I) Defendant No.1 has filed a written statement in which he raises several preliminary objections questioning the maintainability of the suit and the bona fides of the Plaintiffs. At the threshold, he contends that the present proceedings are an abuse of the process of law and have been instituted with the sole intent of harassing and coercing him into submission. He asserts that he is a small-scale trader dealing in ordinary construction materials supplied by different manufacturers, and not a manufacturer of tile adhesive as alleged. According to him, the Plaintiffs have built their case on conjecture, fabrication and misrepresentation, and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(II) The Defendant states that he carries on business under the proprietorship name "Shri Krishna Bansal Trading", and not "Bansal Trading India" as pleaded by the Plaintiffs. He alleges that the Plaintiffs have incorrectly described his entity, its nature of operations, and even its location. He specifically denies that he has ever manufactured, stocked or sold any tile adhesive under the impugned mark "KAJARIA +" or any other mark resembling the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks. He asserts that the warehouse identified by the Plaintiffs near FCI, Chulkana Road, NIRJA Samalkha, Panipat does not belong to him, is not under his BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 control, and has no connection with his business. 15:49:35 +0545 Page no. 6/21 (III) With respect to the transaction allegedly conducted by the investigator, the Defendant categorically denies that any adhesive bearing the mark "KAJARIA +" was sold at any time. According to him, the commodity given to the investigator was merely "chuna/safedi", which is commonly used in rural areas, and the investigator, acting in concert with the Plaintiffs, deliberately mischaracterised the material to fabricate a false narrative of infringement. The Defendant states that he has no reason to deal in tile adhesive, as the locality where his business operates has negligible demand for such products.
(IV) He also disputes the Plaintiffs' assertion that he informed the investigator that he dealt in several brands of tile adhesive. He points out that the Plaintiffs themselves admit in their pleadings that his shop was closed for several days, making the alleged conversation and subsequent events inherently improbable. He contends that the Plaintiffs never verified the correct entity or premises and have proceeded on assumptions and misinformation.
(V) With regard to the Local Commissioner's proceedings, the Defendant denies any ownership or connection with the premises from which the alleged infringing material was recovered. He claims that he was compelled by the police to accompany the Commissioner and was made to sign papers without understanding their contents or implication. He disowns the material discovered in the warehouse, disputing both its nature and its attribution to him. He further denies any awareness of the NIRJA raw materials, equipment or other items supposedly associated BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA with manufacturing tile adhesive.
BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:49:39 +0545 Page no. 7/21 (VI) The Defendant places particular emphasis on the fact that the seized bags allegedly bore the name "Bansal Trading India"
and asserts that this entity is entirely unrelated to his proprietorship, "Shri Krishna Bansal Trading". He contends that the Plaintiffs, being unable to locate the actual wrongdoer, have attempted to foist liability onto him solely because of the similarity of the business name.
(VII) He further relies on his income tax returns to demonstrate that his annual income is a modest Rs.2,79,740/-, which, according to him, conclusively shows that he neither has the financial capacity nor the infrastructure to engage in any manufacturing activity or any large-scale trade in counterfeit tile adhesive. This, he asserts, renders the Plaintiffs' allegations inherently improbable.
(VIII) The Defendant denies all allegations of infringement, passing off, misrepresentation and unfair competition. He asserts that he has no knowledge of the Plaintiffs' trademarks and no commercial interest in dealing with any goods bearing or resembling the marks "KAJARIA" or "KAJARIA PLUS". He reiterates that his trade relates primarily to paints and miscellaneous construction goods and that the Plaintiffs' allegations are baseless.
(IX) Notwithstanding his complete denial of involvement in any infringing activity, the Defendant submits that he has no objection to a decree of permanent injunction restraining him from manufacturing or selling any goods under the Plaintiffs' marks, as he maintains that he is not engaged in such dealings. Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA However, he contends that all other reliefs sought by the BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06 15:49:43 +0545 Page no. 8/21 Plaintiffs particularly, damages, rendition of accounts and other consequential claims must be dismissed as the Plaintiffs have suffered no injury attributable to him.
(X) Thus, the Defendant prays that the suit be dismissed in its entirety with exemplary costs on the ground that it constitutes frivolous and vexatious litigation.
Note of the proceedings (5) Upon institution of suit, the plaint was scrutinized and on being, found in order, and the suit was duly registered. Along with the plaint, the Plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation on the ground of urgency, having simultaneously sought permanent injunction and ad-interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Considering the nature of the reliefs and the pleadings, the exemption was granted.
On the same date, arguments were heard on the Plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Upon examining the pleadings, documents, and submissions, the Court found a strong prima facie case in favour of the Plaintiffs, noting that they were prior adopters, long-standing users, and registered proprietors of the trademark "KAJARIA". The balance of convenience was held to favour the Plaintiffs, and likelihood of irreparable injury was also established. An ad-interim injunction was consequently granted restraining Defendant No. 1, its proprietors, agents and all persons acting on its behalf from NIRJA manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise dealing in BHATIA Digitally signed tile-adhesive products bearing the impugned mark "KAJARIA +"
by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:49:46 +0545 Page no. 9/21 or any other deceptively similar mark, and further restraining unnamed infringers in the vicinity under the John Doe/Ashok Kumar category.
Simultaneously, the Plaintiffs' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC for appointment of a Local Commissioner was allowed. Mr. Kartar Sharma, Advocate, was appointed with detailed directions to visit Defendant No. 1's warehouse located near FCI Chulkana Road, Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana, and any additional premises identified by the Plaintiffs. He was authorised to break open locks with police assistance, prepare inventory, seize infringing goods, sign account books, and release material on superdari. The commission was duly executed on 27.03.2024, and the Local Commissioner submitted a detailed report recording seizure of 108 filled bags, 180 empty bags, and various discount coupons bearing the impugned mark "KAJARIA +".
On 02.05.2024, compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was taken on record. The Defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement, albeit titled incorrectly as a "Reply to the Plaint". A Statement of Truth was filed; however, no affidavit of admission and denial accompanied the written statement. Time was granted for the same, and the Plaintiffs were permitted to file replication thereafter. At the Plaintiffs' request, the Defendant was also directed to place on record a copy of his Aadhaar card, in view of doubts expressed regarding the particulars furnished by him.
On 04.06.2024, the Defendant sought further time to file the Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA affidavit of admission and denial on the ground of recent BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06 15:49:50 +0545 Page no. 10/21 engagement of counsel. The Plaintiffs, in the meanwhile, filed their replication along with additional documents. As no application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC accompanied the said documents, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted liberty to file an appropriate application. On a joint request of counsel for both sides, the matter was referred to mediation; however, the mediation proceedings did not culminate in any settlement.
On 26.07.2024, the Plaintiffs' application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC seeking permission to place additional documents on record was taken up, and time was granted to the Defendant to file reply. The Defendant filed his affidavit of admission and denial. On 09.09.2024, despite opportunities being extented defendant filed no reply to the said application prior to the next date.
On 18.10.2025 Sh. Anil Kumar appearing for defedant who also joined the proceedings using this court's VC linkand submitted that defendant is agreeable to make the statement that he shall not use the trademark of plaintiff viz., "Kajaria" "Kajaria +" and other formative trademarks on which basis partial decree in plaintiff's favour may be made. The statement to above effect was recorded as defendant affirmed the same. Plaintiff through counsel appearing in court accepted the statement on which partial decree is passed.
The relief regarding damages was kept pending for admission/denial, at the request of the Plaintiffs' counsel, 29.11.2025, with directions to the respective Authorized Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA Representatives to remain present in accordance with Order X BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06 15:49:53 +0545 CPC vide order dated 18.10.2025.Page no. 11/21
The Plaintiffs led their evidence through PW-1, Sh. Vinit Kumar, Authorized Representative of Plaintiff No. 1, who filed his affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) and exhibited corporate documents, trademark registrations, domain-name details, website extracts, advertising material, the Local Commissioner's report, photographs of the Defendant's warehouse, payment receipts, trademark journal extracts, and other relevant material substantiating the Plaintiffs' claims; these documents were taken on record without cross-examination, as the Defendant did not meaningfully challenge the evidence and was proceeded exparte vide proceedings dated 21.04.2025 However, before adverting to record the reasns a note on plaintiff's evidence is breifly recorded.
Plaintiff's Evidence (6) Statement of PW-1 Sh. Vinit Kumar is recorded who tendered his evidence by way of an affidavit and exhibited the following documents:-
1. Status page of Plaintiff No. 1 from the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is Ex.PW1/1.
2. Status page of Plaintiff No. 2 from the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is Ex.PW1/2.
3. Board Resolution dated 12 January 2024 passed in favour of the Board of Directors of Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. is Ex.PW1/3.
4. Original true extract of the Board Resolution dated 12.01.2024 passed in favour of Mr. Sachin Saxena by the Board of Directors of Kajaria Plus Pvt. Ltd. is Ex.PW1/4.
Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA
5. Relevant pages from Plaintiff No. 1's official website BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06 15:49:57 +0545 www.kajariaceramics.com (Pages 401 to 421) are Ex.PW1/5.Page no. 12/21
6. Relevant pages from Plaintiff No. 1's official website www.kajariaceramics.com apprising about Plaintiff No. 1's group companies and various subsidiaries under the house mark "KAJARIA" (Pages 423 to 431) are Ex.PW1/6.
7. Relevant pages from Plaintiff No. 1's official website www.kajariaceramics.com illustrating Plaintiff No. 1's export markets across the world are Ex.PW1/7.
8. Legal Proceedings Certificate (OSR) bearing Registration No. 5043854, dated 14 July 2021, in Class 19, showing that the trademark registrations are valid, renewed, and subsisting as on date, is Ex.PW1/8.
9. Legal Proceedings Certificate (OR) bearing Registration No. 5043857, dated 14 July 2021, in Class 35, is Ex.PW1/9.
10. WHOIS record of the domain name kajariaceramics.com is Ex.PW1/10.
11. WHOIS records of the domain names of the sister concerns of the Plaintiffs (Pages 641 to 670) (Colly) are Ex.PW1/11.
12. Relevant extracts from newspapers and magazines wherein Plaintiff No. 1's brand "KAJARIA" has been advertised (Pages 671 to 692) (Colly) are Ex.PW1/12.
13. Orders passed by Learned Delhi Courts in injunction suits in favour of the Plaintiffs or against defendants/infringers (Pages 999 to 1037) (Colly) are Ex.PW1/13.
14. Journal Entry dated 19 February 2024, wherein the Plaintiff's mark "KAJARIA" was declared as a well-known trademark, is Ex.PW1/14. Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
15. Relevant photographs of Defendant No. 1's address near 2026.01.06 15:50:01 +0545 Page no. 13/21 Chulkana Road, Samalkha, Panipat, Haryana - 132101 are Ex.PW1/15.
16. Truecaller search results of Defendant No. 1's phone number are Ex.PW1/16.
17. Relevant photographs of Defendant No. 1's warehouse (Pages 1043 to 1051) are Ex.PW1/17.
18. Snapshot of the online payment made by the investigator to Defendant No. 1 for purchase of counterfeit products is Ex.PW1/18.
19. Photographs depicting use of the impugned mark "KAJARIA PLUS" on counterfeit tile adhesive products are Ex.PW1/19.
(7) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has made his submissions. I have heard the arguments and have perused the record.
Findings (8) Issue No. 1: Whether the Plaintiffs have established their statutory and proprietary rights in the trademarks "KAJARIA" and "KAJARIA PLUS", including the status of "KAJARIA" as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
The Plaintiffs have placed on record extensive documentary evidence to establish their statutory and proprietary rights in the trademarks "KAJARIA" and "KAJARIA PLUS". The incorporation details of Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 stand proved through Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW1/2, being the status pages downloaded from the website of the Ministry of Corporate NIRJA Affairs. The authority of the deponents is established through the BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 Page no. 14/21 15:50:05 +0545 Board Resolutions dated 12.01.2024, exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4. The extensive commercial operations, business profile, subsidiaries and group structure of Plaintiff No. 1 are shown through Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7, which contain extracts from the official website www.kajariaceramics.com.
The Plaintiffs' statutory rights in the registered trademarks are substantiated through Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/9, being the Legal Proceedings Certificates of Plaintiff No. 2 for Registration Nos. 5043854 (Class 19) and 5043857 (Class 35). Further, the WHOIS details of the Plaintiffs' primary domain name kajariaceramics.com and the domain names of the Plaintiffs' sister concerns have been exhibited as Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 (Colly.), respectively, demonstrating long-standing digital presence and domain control associated with the mark "KAJARIA". The widespread advertisement, goodwill and market reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiffs' trademark are corroborated by newspaper and magazine extracts placed on record as Ex.PW1/12 (Colly.).
The Plaintiffs have also exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 (Colly.) various injunction orders passed in their favour by different Courts, demonstrating consistent judicial recognition of their trademark rights and their proactive approach in combating counterfeiting. The Plaintiffs' most significant document (Ex.PW1/14)is the Journal Entry dated 19.02.2024 whereby the Registrar of Trade Marks declared "KAJARIA" to be a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This NIRJA BHATIA Digitally signed declaration confers the highest level of protection upon the mark by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:50:08 +0545 Page no. 15/21 and strengthens the Plaintiffs' case of infringement and dilution.
Turning to the infringing activities, Ex.PW1/15 contains photographs of the Defendant's address. Ex.PW1/16 comprises the Truecaller search results of the Defendant's mobile phone number, corroborating the linkage between the number contacted by the Plaintiffs' investigator and the Defendant. Ex.PW1/17 contains photographs of the Defendant's warehouse,establishing visual continuity between the site disclosed by the Defendant to the investigator and the site where infringing stock was discovered. The online payment screenshot exhibited as Ex.PW1/18 further demonstrates that the Defendant received Rs. 1,600 from the Plaintiffs' investigator for the supply of approximately 200 kilograms of adhesive packed in bags bearing the impugned mark.
Most importantly, Ex.PW1/19 contains photographs of the counterfeit tile adhesive bags bearing the infringing mark "KAJARIA +". These images show the prominent reproduction of the Plaintiffs' registered mark in a manner likely to deceive an average consumer. The design, trade dress, colour scheme and placement of the word "KAJARIA" on the infringing bags are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' genuine packaging.
The Local Commissioner's report, though separately filed, is supported by and corroborated through the photographic exhibits (Ex.PW1/17 and Ex.PW1/19). During execution of the commission, the Defendant himself broke open the lock of the warehouse, and 108 filled bags, 180 empty bags and 14 "Mistri Discount Coupons" bearing the impugned mark were NIRJA BHATIA inventorised and seized. The Defendant has not filed objections Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 Page no. 16/21 15:50:12 +0545 to the Local Commissioner's report, nor has he cross-examined PW-1 to challenge the authenticity of the exhibits. The unchallenged nature of these documents signifies that the evidence brought by the Plaintiffs stands proved.
The Defendant's Written Statement contains contradictory assertions that stand discredited by the Plaintiffs' documentary record. The Defendant denies owning the premises depicted in Ex.PW1/15 and Ex.PW1/17; however, the Defendant's act of breaking the lock during the commission execution confirms his control over the premises. The Defendant's allegation that the investigator had only purchased "chuna/safedi" is contradicted by Ex.PW1/18 (online transaction record) and Ex.PW1/19 (photographs of the purchased counterfeit bags). The Defendant's inconsistent disclosure of his business name, sometimes "Bansal Trading", sometimes "Shri Krishna Bansal Trading", sometimes "Bansal Trading India" contradicts his own tax documents (which are uncertified under Section 65B), further reducing the credibility of his defence.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs have produced the Status Page and TM-A filed by the Defendant for the infringing trademark application no. 633506 dated 04.04.2024 (Document No.1 Colly., part of replication). This application, filed after the grant of injunction on 21.03.2024 and after seizure of infringing goods on 27.03.2024, demonstrates the Defendant's wilful continuation of infringement and deliberate violation of Court orders.
In view of the exhibits Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/19 and the NIRJA BHATIA additional prosecution documents forming part of the replication, Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:50:16 +0545 Page no. 17/21 the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Defendant was engaged in manufacturing, stocking, distributing and selling counterfeit tile adhesive products bearing the impugned mark "KAJARIA +". The Plaintiffs have established infringement under Sections 29(1), 29(2) and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, dilution of a well-known trademark, and passing off at common law. The Defendant has not led any evidence nor offered any explanation for the seized infringing stock. The Court therefore concludes, based on the exhibited material and unrebutted testimony of PW-1, that the Defendant's conduct amounts to systematic, wilful and commercially motivated infringement of the Plaintiffs' trademarks, causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation.
(9) Issue No. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and compensatory/exemplary damages as prayed for, and if so, to what extent?
Permanent Injunction (10) An order dated 18.10.2025 came to be passed upon a statement of admission by defendant. He agreed to suffer a partial decree of permanent restrain. In view of which no fresh orders are required as the said order is confirmed being unchallenged.
Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant No.1, his proprietorship concern, servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all persons acting for or on his behalf, restraining them from manufacturing, stocking, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in any goods bearing the marks "KAJARIA", "KAJARIA PLUS", NIRJA "KAJARIA +" or any other mark deceptively similar thereto, so BHATIA Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:50:19 +0545 Page no. 18/21 as to amount to infringement or passing off.
Delivery UP Plaintiff though has made a prayer for delivery up in plaint has not placed any material on record at the stage of final adjudication to establish the possession, custody or control of infringing goods with the Defendant so as to justify a decree for delivery-up. The said relief is therefore denied.
Rendition of Accounts The prayer seeking rendition of accounts is to be declined. Since plaintiff failed to make any effort for seizure of accounts. In circumstance, the accounts are not being seized, in absence, defendant cannot be compel at this stage for such rendition as is prayed.
Punitive Damages The Plaintiffs have sought punitive damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- alleging deliberate and willful infringement by the Defendant. However, upon a careful consideration of the pleadings and evidence on record, this Court finds that no cogent material has been placed to quantify actual loss, unjust enrichment, or commercial profits earned by the Defendant from the alleged infringing activity. While the Defendant's conduct does amount to infringement and passing off, the Plaintiffs have neither led evidence of decline in sales, loss of market share, reputational damage quantified in monetary terms, nor placed any material to demonstrate that compensatory damages awarded would be inadequate, which is a sine qua non for grant of punitive or exemplary damages.
NIRJA BHATIA The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Digitally signed by NIRJA BHATIA Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd., ILR Date: 2026.01.06 15:50:23 +0545 Page no. 19/21 (2014) II Delhi 1288, has categorically held that punitive damages cannot be awarded as a matter of course in intellectual property matters, and must follow a determination that compensatory damages are insufficient. The said principle has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions.
In the present case, although infringement is established, the Plaintiffs have failed to discharge the burden required for award of punitive or exemplary damages. Accordingly, the prayer for punitive damages is declined.
(11) However in view of the assessment of which reflects this case fit for consideration under the observation made in Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra) and Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. HRTN Cable Network, 2017 SCC Online Delhi 10943 an amount of Rs 2lac is being imparted to plaintiff as exempting compensation. Since, contesting defendant remained persistent leading to continuation of context due to which plaintiff was made to incur expenses and spend valuable time in order to present breach of his rights.
(12) Issue No. 3 Whether this Court has the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit in terms of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
This court has the requisite territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain, try, and adjudicate the present commercial suit. Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 carry on business within the territorial limits of South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, with their corporate and registered offices situated at J-1/B-1 (Extension), Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. In terms of Section 134(2) of the NIRJA BHATIA Digitally signed Trade Marks Act, 1999, a suit for infringement of a registered by NIRJA BHATIA Date: 2026.01.06 15:50:29 +0545 Page no. 20/21 trade mark may be instituted before the District Court within whose jurisdiction the registered proprietor actually and voluntarily carries on business, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further submitted that the Plaintiffs have specifically pleaded in the plaint that the markets in South Delhi, where the Defendants' infringing and counterfeit products were offered and circulated, fall within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The said averment has been duly reiterated and affirmed by the Plaintiffs in their examination-in-chief. Significantly, no cross- examination whatsoever was conducted by the Defendants. Consequently, the Plaintiffs' testimony remains unchallenged, unrebutted, and deemed to be admitted, thereby conclusively establishing that part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
Relief (13) Suit is partially decreed for relief of permanent injunction and damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- and costs which are quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- towards Local Commissioner's fee, Rs. 22,150/- towards court fees and Rs. 10,000/- towards lawyers' fees, in terms of Section 35 of the CPC.
(14) File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
(15) Decree sheet shall be drawn Digitally signed by NIRJA NIRJA BHATIA BHATIA Date:
2026.01.06 15:50:36 +0545 Announced in open Court (Nirja Bhatia) today on 13th December, 2025 District Judge (Comm. Court) (Digital-07) South-East, Saket Court, New Delhi Page no. 21/21