Delhi District Court
Kumar Food Industries Ltd vs M/S Karan Foods on 16 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 842/2024
KUMAR FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD
A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at
71/1, Siraspur, Delhi-110042 Plaintiff
Versus
M/s KARAN FOODS
Krishna Nagar, Gali No.3,
Jhajjar Road, Bahadurgarh-124507
Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) Defendant no.1
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
B-4/158, Ground Floor,
Left Side, Safdarjung Enclave,
Delhi-110029 Defendant no.2
Date of Institution : 03.08.2024
Date of Arguments : 11.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2026
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE MARKS, COPYRIGHT, Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 1 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.16 16:07:08 +0530 PASSING OFF, UNFAIR COMPETITION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION, DELIVERY UP, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, AND/OR DAMAGES ETC.
1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off, unfair competition, mandatory injunction, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and/or damages has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. PLAINT It is inter-alia stated in the plaint that:-
2.1 The plaintiff, is a limited company having his office 71/1, Siraspur, Delhi-110042. The present suit is being filed through Sh. Rajneesh Pandey, a Director of the plaintiff company, who is well conversant with the business activities of the plaintiff as well as with the facts and circumstances of the present case. He is further authorized by the Board of Directors to institute the present suit, sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff company.
2.2 The plaintiff is an old, established and a well-known manufacturer and seller of variety of edible articles for human consumption including Atta, Besan, Suji, Maida and various other similar variants of grain flours.
2.3 That the plaintiff company was incorporated Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 2 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 on 30.03.1991 as a company promoted by Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar, the original adopter of the trademark SHAKTI BHOG who was using the mark SHAKTI BHOG and its various variants since its original adoption in the year 1975.
2.4 Ever since its incorporation, the plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacturing/grinding and/or processing of edible grains and has been using trademark SHAKTI BHOG and/or for selling its merchandise being Atta, Besan, Suji, Maida and various other similar variants of grain flours as permitted user from the original owner of the mark who was also the promoter of the Plaintiff till the year 2017.
2.5 That in the year 1996, a Formal License Deed dated 1.10.1996 was executed in favour of the Plaintiff by Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar thereby formally issuing an irrevocable license for the use of the trademark SHAKTI BHOG by plaintiff for 10 years.
2.6 Thereafter, in the year 2006, another License Deed dated 3.4.2006 was executed in favour of Plaintiff by Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar extending the irrevocable license for the use of the trademark SHAKTI BHOG in favour of the plaintiff for a further period of 30 years.
2.7 In the year 2007, Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, assigned the registrations of the trade mark SHAKTI Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 3 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 BHOG and its variants including in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32, in favour of his own company Shakti Bhog Foods Limited ("SBFL") by virtue of Assignment Deed dated 28.2.2007 for a consideration of Rs. Ten Crores, while retaining the rights in respect of the said mark for other classes. The License Deed dated 3.4.2006 was acknowledged in the Assignment deed dated 28.2.2007 and thus the plaintiff herein continued to manufacture and sell its goods under the mark SHAKTI BHOG and/or .
2.8 The trade mark SHAKTI BHOG was statutorily protected in the name of Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar and later on in the name of SBFL by virtue of registrations granted in the following manner:
Registration Trade Mark Class Goods No./dated 473275 SHAKTI BHOG 29 preserved, dried 08/06/1987 and cooked fruits, jellies jams, eggs, edible oils and fats and pickles 391844 SHAKTI BHOG 30 flour daal (broken 16/06/1982 grains) besan and other preparations made from cereals.
Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 4 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 472286 30 flour, dall (broken 01/04/1975 grains) besan, sugar, tea, coffee, preparations made from cereals, ices, honey, treacle, yeast, baking- powder, salt, mustard, pepper, vinegar, sauces, spices 634933 30 besan, atta, maida, 25/07/1994 suji, rawa, bran, pulses, preparations made from cereals food products for human consumption, cereal foods, ready to eat foods products. 698194 30 coffee, tea, cocoa, 12/02/1996 sugar, sago, chocolate, tapioca, coffee substitutes, flour of grains, maida, sooji, dalia, basin, rawa and preparations made from cereals, pulses, del (broken grains), bread biscuits, cakes, pastry and confectionary, ices, honey, treacle, yeast baking powder, salt, mustard, pepper, Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 5 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 vinegar, sauces, spices, food products for human consumption, sweets, namkins, snack food, ready to eat food products. 1079584 30 papad, vadi 11/02/2002 1094756 30 salt, condiments, & spices 12/04/2002 2522561 30 rice, atta, maida, 30/04/2013 sooji, dalia, besan, rawa and preparation made from cereals, pulses, dal (broken grains), flour of grains, sugar, tapioca, sago, ices, honey, treacle, yeast, baking powder, salt, mustard, pepper, vinegar, sauces, condiments, spices, biscuits, bread, cakes, pastry, chocolate, confectionery, sweets, namkins, Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 6 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 snack foods, tea, coffee, coffee substitutes, cocoa, ready to eat food products, food products for human consumption. 611145 SHAKTI BHOG 31 bran 04/11/1993 749352 SHAKTI BHOG 32 beer, ale, porter, 21/03/1997 mineral and other aerated waters and other non- alcoholic drinks, syrups and other preparations for making beverages, soft drinks and fruit juices, sharbats and shakes. 780449 SHAKTI BHOG 32 beer, ale and 01/12/1997 porter, mineral and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks, syrups and other preparations for making beverages, soft drinks and fruits juices, sharbats and shakes 1240963 42 description relating 03/10/2003 to provide food and drink, cafes, cafeterias, canteens, catering, restaurants, snack Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 7 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 bars, fast foods, joints, pubs, clubs, hotels, computers, computing apparatus and equipment, programming of computers, engineering, construction of computer hardware and design, writing of computer software, merchandising, leasing and marketing, consultancy, counselling, search, investigation, enquiry, advisory, information, temporary accommodation, medical, hygienic & beauty care, veterinary and agricultural services, legal services, scientific and industrial research 2.9 The trade mark SHAKTI BHOG and/or
and/or various other formative SHAKTI BHOG formative marks are registered in various classes Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 8 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 like Class 29, 30, 31, 32 & 42 of the 4 th Schedule under the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise Act, 1958 and/ or Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2.10 The is also an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and is protected under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 along-with several other packaging labels used to pack the goods under the marks SHAKTI BHOG and/or .
2.11 Around the year 2015-2016, the financial health of SBFL started dipping and the business of the said company slowed down extremely to such an extent that sales turnovers which were over 3900 Crores (approx.) in 2015-16 had come down to almost 550 Crores (approx.) in 2016-17. During that time i.e. around October, 2017 Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar had also resigned as a Director from the plaintiff company and divested his shareholding as well.
2.12 At that point in time, as the plaintiff was using the trademark SHAKTI BHOG and/or in the course of its business as a Licensee and as it did not want any third party/ investor to take over the brand SHAKTI BHOG and/or from SBFL, the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 9 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 Plaintiff entered into negotiations for acquiring the exclusive ownership rights in the said trademark/brand SHAKTI BHOG. During such discussions, and negotiations, the final consideration for the assignment of the trademark SHAKTI BHOG for the goods included in class 29, 30, 31 and 32, the copyrights in the packaging(s)/trade dress as also the Foreign Registrations/Applications was decided to be fixed at Rs.14.10 Crores.
2.13 The plaintiff herein was informed that the file pertaining to the original Foreign Trademark Registration Certificates of various countries and the applications thereof were not readily available and the same would not be handed over along with the other original documents including the original Assignment Deed dated 28.02.2007, original License Deed dated 03.04.2006 and the original trademark certificates pertaining to the registrations acquired in India as also the original Copyright Certificates issued by the Indian Copyright Office. At that stage it was decided that an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) would be retained back by the Plaintiff herein until the original Foreign Trademark Registration Certificates and/or other original documents pertaining thereto were handed over to the plaintiff by SBFL. The balance payment of Rs.60,00,000/- was to be made against the receipt of such original Foreign Registration Certificates Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 10 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 and/or documents.
2.14 It was further decided between the parties that SBFL shall be granted a period of 3 years to handover such original Foreign Registration Certificates and/or original duplicate certificates thereof to be got issued from the relevant trademark offices of various countries and in case SBFL was unable to handover such original Foreign Trademark Registration Certificates or the duplicate certificates thereof, the plaintiff shall not be liable to pay any further amount towards the assignment.
2.15 The payment of Rs.13.5 crores was made to SBFL by the plaintiff on 29.12.2017 and 30.12.2017 and was duly acknowledged in Deed of Assignment.
2.16 That upon the execution of the Deed of Assignment and the handing over of the original Documents, including Assignment deed dated 28.2.2007, Original License Agreement dated 3.4.2006, original Indian Trademark Certificates and the original Indian Copyright Certificates, the plaintiff herein continued the use of the trademark SHAKTI BHOG from January, 2018 as an exclusive owner/proprietor thereof and has extensively promoted the said mark.
2.17 Couple of months after the execution of the Deed of Assignment, the plaintiff, came to know that SBFL had gone into liquidation under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had appointed an Official Liquidator to run the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 11 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 affairs of SBFL.
2.18 Despite the expiry of the period of three years from the execution of the Deed of Assignment dated 30.12.2017, SBFL did not handover the original or duplicate Foreign Trademark Registration Certificate(s) and the originals of other documents pertaining to the foreign registrations/applications and thus no amount remained due and payable by the Plaintiff to SBFL from 30.12.2020 and the rights assigned in favour of Plaintiff by virtue of the said Assignment Deed dated 30.12.2017 became absolute.
2.19 The SBFL which is now undergoing proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2015, acting through its IRP appointed by the Hon'ble NCLT has filed a Suit being CS (Comm) 244/2023 against the plaintiff herein and its contract manufacturers and the same is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Sh Kewal Krishan Kumar who is the defendant No.10 in the said suit has already been examined by the Hon'ble High Court Under Order 10 CPC on 16.1.2024 wherein he has confirmed the execution of the Assignment Deed dated 30.12.2017 in favour of the plaintiff.
2.20 The plaintiff herein has duly filed a Counter Claim against SBFL in the CS (Comm) 244/2023 and the interim applications filed by SBFL and the plaintiff herein are pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Delhi Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 12 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 High Court. It is further relevant to point out that Hon'ble High Court has by way of an ad-interim order directed the plaintiff not to transfer any right, title or interest in the mark SHAKTI BHOG till the hearing is concluded and orders are passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The applications Under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC are pending adjudication and the Hon'ble High Court has yet to finally decide the said applications filed by the respective parties in the said suit.
2.21 The plaintiff is the proprietor/owner of the Trade Mark SHAKTI BHOG which has been in extensive and continuous usage by plaintiff since last over 32 years, initially as a licensee of Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar and since January, 2018 as the owner/ proprietor thereof by virtue of Deed of Assignment dated 30.12.2017 and is entitled to claim the benefit of the registrations subject matter of the Deed of Assignment dated 30.12.2017. That even otherwise, the dispute raised by IRP at the behest of competitors of the Plaintiff, does not confer any right to any third party for the unauthorized use and infringement of trade mark of the plaintiff and to pass-off their articles as that of the plaintiff.
2.22 The plaintiff has spent tremendous time, effort and money in promoting, publicizing and popularizing the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG. The plaintiff has been carrying out huge, prestigious and Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 13 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 aggressive publicity campaigns to popularize its goods under the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG and has been continuously spending huge amount of money each year on such advertisements. The purchasing public and the members of the trade thus identify and recognize goods under the said trade mark to be quality products of the plaintiff's source of manufacture and sale.
2.23 The goods under the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG are being used by millions of consumers in various parts of India and are being distributed by hundreds of traders involved in the channel of distribution being whole-sellers, retailers etc. 2.24 By virtue of priority in adoption of trademark SHAKTI BHOG and long, continuous and extensive use made thereof and massive publicity given thereto, the plaintiff has acquired and retained exclusive right to use the same under the common law.
2.25 The plaintiff is also the assignee of numerous registrations of the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG in various countries in the world. The details of such foreign registrations are as follows:
S. No. Registration Trademark Class Country No.
1. 983658 SHAKTI 29 & 30 AUSTRALIA BHOG
2. 088618 SHAKTI 29 BAHARAIN BHOG 3 1997/300 SHAKTI 30 BHUTAN BHOG Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 14 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024
4. 4781428 SHAKTI 30 CHINA BHOG
5. 287414 SHAKTI 29 EGYPT BHOG
6. 003318151 SHAKTI 3,29,30, EUROPEAN BHOG 31 UNION
7. 12022042 SHAKTI 29,30,4 EUROPEAN BHOG 3 UNION PRIME
8. 300183186 SHAKTI 30 HONG BHOG KONG
9. 71491 SHAKTI 30 KENYA BHOG
10. 123707 SHAKTI 30 KUWAIT BHOG
11. 04004677 SHAKTI 30 MALAYSIA BHOG
12. 05692 SHAKTI 29, 30 MAURITIUS BHOG
13. 019399 SHAKTI 30 MOZAMBIQ BHOG UE
14. 139793 SHAKTI 30 MOROCCO BHOG
15. 724823 SHAKTI 30 NEW BHOG ZEALAND
16. 100004 SHAKTI 30 NIGERIA BHOG
17. 261283 SHAKTI 29, 30 NORWAY BHOG
18. 3201101822 SHAKTI 29,30,3 OAPI BHOG 1
19. 233419 SHAKTI 39 PAKISTAN BHOG
20. 233420 SHAKTI 30 PAKISTAN BHOG
21. 35176 SHAKTI 30 QATAR BHOG Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 15 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024
22. 36154 SHAKTI 29 QATAR BHOG
23. 705855 SHAKTI 30 RUSSIA BHOG
24. 3318151 SHAKTI 3,29,30, RUSSIA BHOG 31
25. T05/01379B SHAKTI 30 SINGAPORE BHOG
26. 00559/2005 SHAKTI 30 SOUTH BHOG AFRICA
27. 20573/2005 SHAKTI 29 SOUTH BHOG AFRICA
28. 60750/2013 SHAKTI 29,30 SWITZERLA BHOG ND
29. 220442 SHAKTI 30 THAILAND BHOG
30. AE/62349 SHAKTI 30 UAE BHOG
31. 2011/44231 SHAKTI 30 UGANDA BHOG
32. 3026591 SHAKTI 29 & 30 USA BHOG
33. 56485 SHAKTI 30 YEMEN BHOG
34. 2013/000931 SHAKTI 29 ZAMBIA BHOG
35. 2013/000932 SHAKTI 30 ZAMBIA BHOG
36. 1138/2013 SHAKTI 29 ZIMBABWE BHOG
37. 1139/2013 SHAKTI 30 ZIMBABWE BHOG 2.26 The plaintiff is also the owner of copyright in the logo and various other packaging(s) Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 16 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 used to pack goods under the mark SHAKTI BHOG and its variants as assignee thereof in terms of the Assignment Deed dated 30.12.2017.
2.27 During a recent market survey got conducted by the plaintiff in last week of June, 2024, to identify some infringing and look alike marks floating in the markets, the attention of the Plaintiff was drawn to the Atta manufactured and sold by the Defendant No.1 herein under the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG in an identical logo i.e. and packed in an almost identical packaging bag as depicted below:
2.28 Such infringing Atta Packets are being sold without issuance of bills in local wholesale and retail markets including the market at Khari Baoli, Chandni Chowk etc. within the jurisdiction of this Court. A further perusal of the packing shows that the defendant's goods do not mention the mandatory date of manufacturing/date Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 17 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 of expiry and it appears that the FSSAI number mentioned thereon is also not valid.
2.29 A bare perusal of the above infringing mark and packaging reveals that the defendant No.1 has adopted an almost identical mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG which is visually, phonetically and structurally identical to the plaintiff's trade mark SHAKTI BHOG in respect of the identical goods for which the plaintiff has statutory and common law rights in the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG. Further the defendant No.1 has reproduced the artistic features of the plaintiff's by adopting an identical logo . The defendant No.1 has copied the entire colour scheme of the logo and writing style and has not left any stone unturned in copying the trade mark as well as copyright of the plaintiff.
2.30 In order to further check the activities of the defendant No.1, the plaintiff caused a search in the records of the Registrar of Trade Marks wherein it was noticed that the defendant No.2 had on 9/1/2023 applied for registration of the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG under application no. 5757242 in Class 30 in respect of Flour, Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 18 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 Besan (gram Flour), Suji (wheat Flour), Maida (wheat Flour), Sugar, Tea, Coffee, Preparations made from cereals on a "proposed to be used" basis. The aforesaid application is shown as objected and the plaintiff shall oppose the same if at all the same is accepted to be published in the Trade Mark Journal.
2.31 The plaintiff has not been able to find out the exact constitution of the defendant no.1 firm but the defendant No.2 appears to be connected with the defendant No.1 as a partner or proprietor. However, the defendants are called upon to disclose their true connection and constitution before this Court.
2.32 The defendant's only intention is to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff or having some association/connection with the plaintiff. The goods of the plaintiff touches millions of lives daily and the adoption of the impugned marks in any manner by the defendants in respect of goods of the plaintiff is bound to take unfair advantage and is bound to be detrimental to the distinctive character of the plaintiff's registered trademarks SHAKTI BHOG and/or . Any such adoption on part of the defendants is also bound to dilute the distinctive character of the plaintiff well known marks.
2.33 The defendants have started using the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 19 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 impugned marks to trade upon the reputation of the plaintiff and to earn profits in an illegal manner.
2.34 The unwary purchasers are not only likely but are bound to be confused, deceived and misled into considering the impugned goods under the impugned marks as the goods of plaintiff's source and origin. The chances of confusion & deception are further enhanced from the fact that the nature of the goods is identical and that the same are purchased and consumed by a class of purchasers including semi-literate and illiterate persons and persons possessing an average and / or imperfect recollection. The goods of the parties are displayed, offered for sale and sold not only in big cities but also in small cities, towns and villages including villages at the outskirts of Delhi and are purchased and consumed by a large class of purchasers. The general public is being cheated and deceived into buying the goods of the defendants.
2.35 The plaintiff's and the defendants products are identical having identical trading channels and sold at the same counters to the same class of purchasers. The purchasing public and members of the trade are likely to presume that the defendant's products are the products of the plaintiff.
2.36 The adoption, reproduction and/or use of the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 20 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 also amounts to the infringement of plaintiff's copyright in its Red-White coloured logo.
2.37 The plaintiff, however, estimates that on account of defendants illegal and unlawful trade activities, the defendants must have earned huge profits. The defendant's gains are the plaintiff's losses. In any case, the adoption and use of the impugned marks has certainly damaged and diluted the goodwill of the plaintiff.
2.38 The defendants are liable to render their accounts for ascertaining the profits earned by them by their unlawful trade activities of infringement of trademarks, copyright and passing off.
2.39 Further, the invaluable reputation of the plaintiff firm which has been earned after lot of efforts, time & money on advertisement is also in danger of being damaged seriously due to the inferior quality goods of the defendants which is being sold in the market as the goods of the plaintiff.
2.40 The plaintiff estimates damages in excess of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs Only) on the aforesaid account as a reasonable estimation of Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 21 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 defendant's contribution as a cause for the loss of reputation, goodwill including an occurrence of the loss of possible sales thereby causing loss of monetary profits to the plaintiff as also towards punitive and compensatory damages.
2.41 The defendants are likely to be in possession of huge stocks of packaging for the impugned goods, publicity material, packing material etc. bearing the impugned marks. The defendants are also liable to furnish an inventory of such goods and material in their power and possession for destruction.
2.42 The defendants are liable to disclose on oath before this Court, by way of filing of unimpeachable documentary evidence, the details with regard to the manufacture and sale of ATTA, MAIDA, BESAN, SUJI bearing the impugned trade mark as well as all the documents concerning the same including the names and addresses of its stockiest, dealers, representatives, agents, etc. along with the cost and quantity of the infringing products sold by the defendants to the said parties till date.
2.43 This Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the defendant's are soliciting, marketing and/or selling the impugned goods under the impugned marks MAHA SHAKTI BHOG Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 22 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 and/or in Central Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The cause of action for the present suit has also arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court as the goods of the defendants under the impugned mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or are being sold at various places in Kahri Baoli, Chandi Chowk. This Court also has special jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit under the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as the plaintiff carries on business and works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by sale of its goods.
2.44 Hence, this suit with following prayer :-
(b) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietor/partners as the case may be, their agents, servants, retailers, stockiest, distributors, representatives from manufacturing selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any food articles including ATTA, BESAN, MAIDA, SUJI and/or any other cognate/allied goods under the impugned mark MAHA Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 23 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 SHAKTI BHOG and/or and/or any other marks as may be confusingly and deceptively similar mark to the registered trademarks of the plaintiffs, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade marks; and
(c) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietor/partners/directors, their agents, servants, retailers, stockiest, distributors, representatives from reproducing the impugned artistic works or any other artistic work having similar get up, lay out, colour combination, to the plaintiff's in any manner including but not limited to its packaging, advertising, in relation to food articles including ATTA, BESAN, MAIDA, SUJI and/or any other allied/cognate goods amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's copyrights in the aforesaid artistic works.
(d) pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 24 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 proprietor/partners/directors, their agents, servants, retailers, stockiest, distributors, representatives from manufacturing selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, and/or directly or indirectly dealing in food food articles including ATTA, BESAN, MAIDA, SUJI and/or any other allied/cognate goods under its impugned mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or and/or any other marks as may be confusingly and deceptively similar mark to the well-
known mark SHAKTI BHOG and/or of the plaintiff and/or from copying any of the distinctive features of the plaintiff's well known logo by the use of or any trade dress or logo amounting to passing off and/or from doing any other business under or containing the name SHAKTI BHOG and/or from doing any act which may amount the defendants to pass off their goods and business as those of the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever; and
(e) A decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendant no.2 to withdraw the TM application no.5757242 filed by him before Registrar of Trade Marks, Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 25 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 New Delhi for registration of MAHA SHAKTI BHOG marks in class 30.
(f) For an order of delivery up for purposes of destruction of all material bearing the impugned mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or including packagings, pouches, labels, dies, boxes, cartons, paper bags, wrappers, banners, hoardings and any other infringing material used by the defendant in pursuit of its illegal activities.
(g) For an order directing the Defendants to render account of profits earned by it by the use of the impugned marks MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or and for decree of amount so found due by way of a money decree for such amount in favour of the plaintiff.
(h) A decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for recovery of an amount of Rs 50,00,000/- as punitive/compensatory damages for committing the illegal activities of infringement of trade mark, passing off, & unfair competition.
COMPROMISE WITH DEFENDANT NO.1 Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 26 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024
3. Summons for settlement of issues were served upon both the defendants. No written statement was filed by defendant no.1. The matter stood compromised between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and an application under order XXIII rule 3 CPC was jointly filed by plaintiff and defendant no.1 stating inter-alia " The Defendant No.1 has informed that he had briefly used the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG under misconception and influence of defendant no.2." In view of the submissions and prayer in the application under order XXIII rule 3 CPC, suit of the plaintiff was decreed for the relief of injunctions against defendant no.1.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.2
4. Defendant no.2 contested the suit by filing written statement. It is inter-alia stated in the preliminary objections that :-
4.1 Defendant no.2 applied for registration of trademark namely MAHA SHAKTI BHOG vide trademark application no. 5757242, being single firm located at B-4/158, ground floor, left side Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi-110029. Thereafter, a notice bearing no.1348914 dated 29.08.2014 was filed by plaintiff, who had taken the objection before the Registrar of Trademark, Trademarks Registry Delhi and defendant no.2 filed Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 27 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 counter-statement to that objection before the Registrar of Trademarks.
4.2 It is further stated that defendant no.2 is trading through a public limited company namely India International Marketing Central Limited that incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 23.06.1993. The defendant no.2 has been involved in trading, marketing, selling at retail and wholesale levels several goods and services which include but not restricted to "flour Besan grain flour, Sooji wheat flour, Maida, Wheat flour, Sugar, Tea, Coffee, preparations made from Cerals". The goods of defendant no.2 are grouped into class 30 of Trademark Classification.
4.3 It is further stated that defendant no.2 during its course of long continuous and extensive business/commercial activities has acquired enormous prestige and goodwill through a massive expansion of its business and its tradename, trademark, entity name and its overall business.
4.4 It is further stated that defendant no.2 has coined and adopted the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG in the year 2023 and has continuously, widely, extensively and uninterruptedly using the same for and upon the said goods. The said trademark was adopted by defendant no.2 after conducting profound and extensive research and Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 28 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 search of the trademark register and of the relevant markets and only after ascertaining that no similar or identical trademark exists. The mark used by defendant no.2 is unique, distinct and disparate from any other mark/logo being used by any other entity. It is further stated that defendant no.2 has invested a huge amount of money, time, hard work, labour, research and other sources in coining, adopting and using the said trademark.
The goods as sold and supplied under the said mark are of superlative and exceptional quality and standards. The mark of defendant no.2 is unique and prima-facie inherently distinctive.
4.5 It is further stated that defendant no.2 is true and bonafide adopter, honest and current user of the trademark. The mark of defendant no.2 is well recognized, reputed and has substantial goodwill among the customers and general public. The goods of defendant no.2 are provided through different platforms and complex trade-value chain with the involvement of individual from different fields i.e. accountants, tax experts, software developers, analysts, professionals, e- commerce experts etc.. Hence, the registration of trademark is accepted by the Registrar of Trademarks on 19.08.2024 and he issued license to defendant no.2 in respect of trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG for a period of 05 years.
Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 29 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 4.6 It is further stated that defendant no.2 has no concern with the logo SHAKTI BHOG. The defendant no.2 has no link or any type of association with plaintiff no.1. In fact there is no relationship of any kind between the defendant no.2 and defendant no.1. Hence, the present case filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no.2 is absolutely false and baseless and without any cause of action. The suit is thus liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. The defendant no.2 has nothing to do with the product of plaintiff in any manner and is at liberty to sell his product in the public at large in India or outside the country under the name MAHA SHAKTI BHOG under the license issued to him by the Registrar of Trademarks under clause 30 of Trademark Act.
4.7 It is further stated that defendant no.2 has no concern with the business of defendant no.1 and plaintiff in any manner. The license for the products of MAHA SHAKTI BHOG was allotted to defendant no.2 on 19.08.2024 and since then no item has been sold by defendant no.2 in the Indian market till date. It is further stated that defendant no.2 is a cancer patient and is unable to do any type of business and is under treatment. It is further stated that dispute has arisen between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 only and defendant no.2 has nothing to do in the business of defendant no.1. Hence, the suit is Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 30 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 liable to be dismissed.
4.8 In reply on merits of the written statement, facts regarding existence, description and business of the plaintiff are denied for want of knowledge. Facts stated in the preliminary objections are reiterated. It is reiterated that the defendant no.2 is the owner of trademark Maha Shakti Bhog which has been registered under application no.5757242 on dated 19.08.2024 for a period of 05 years. It is again stated that the defendant no.2 has no concern with the business of defendant no.1. It is also stated that defendant no.2 has no concern with the trademark Shakti Bhog of plaintiff and did not do any activities or passing off in respect of the said trademark Shakti Bhog. Any loss to plaintiff is denied and it is stated that suit has been filed by plaintiff against defendant no.2 in a wrongful manner and same is liable to be dismissed against defendant no.2.
4.9 In reply to para no.50 of the plaint regarding territorial jurisdiction of this court, it is stated that this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the defendant no.2 has played no role in the present matter and this is a case between plaintiff and defendant no.1.
REPLICATION
5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 31 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 thereby reiterating the facts stated in the plaint and denying contrary allegations of the written statement.
ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 25.07.2025 following issues were framed:-
1) Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant no.2 as defendant no.2 has no relation with defendant no.1? OPD.
2) Whether the Defendant no.2's impugned mark "MAHA SHAKTI BHOG" is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark SHAKTI BHOG? OPP.
3) Whether the use of the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG by the Defendant no. 2 amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark SHAKTI BHGOG ? OPP.
4) Whether the use of the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG by the Defendant No. 2 amounts to passing off its goods and business as those of the Plaintiff? OPP.
5) Whether the use of the mark or on behalf of the Defendant no. 2 amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's Copyright in SHAKTI BHOG? OPP.
6) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as sought for in the Plaint? OPP
7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing no. 2 to withdraw the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 32 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 TM Application no. 575242 filed by him before the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi for registration of mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG in class 30? OPP.
8) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts of profits, and recovery of amounts found due? OPP.
9) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-, or of any other amount, against the Defendant No.2? OPP.
10) Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. PW1 Sh. Rajneesh Pandey, Director of the company was examined as PW-1 and proved the documents as mentioned in the affidavit Ex.PW1/A as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/37.
ARGUMENTS
8. Learned counsels for parties addressed their respective final arguments. Plaintiff and defendant no.2 filed their respective written submissions.
9. It is argued by learned counsel for plaintiff that the plaintiff has successfully proved its case for infringement of its trademark and copyright. He has also proved that plaintiff has also proved the case of passing- off as the plaintiff is the prior user of trademark SHAKTI BHOG and has obtained a goodwill in the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 33 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 market by investing expenses in the marketing and advertisements etc. He inter-alia argued that defendant is liable to pay damages and actual cost to the plaintiff and that defendant has failed to prove his false plea of grant of license by the Registrar of Trademarks.
10. On the other hand learned counsel for defendant no.2 has argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove involvement of defendant no.2 anywhere. He argued that plaintiff further failed to prove that defendant no.2 had any relation with defendant no.1 and that material was sold by defendant no.2 to anyone in the territorial jurisdiction of this court and that the defendant no.2 is manufacturing any of its product under the name MAHA SHAKTI BHOG. He further argued that plaintiff has also failed to prove that any Atta Chakki is installed by defendant no.2 anywhere in Delhi. It is further argued by him that defendant no.2 is owner of MAHA SHAKTI BHOG but the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant no.2 has sold any material of MAHA SHAKTI BHOG within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. It is further argued that defendant no.2 is entitled to use trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG for a period of five years with effect from 29.08.2024 but has not sold any material with effect from 29.08.2024 anywhere in Delhi or in India. Defendant no.2 relied on following judgments:-
1) Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. VS Sanjay Dalia & Anr., Civil Appal Nos. 10643-10644 of Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 34 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 2010.
2) Ultra Home Construction Pvt Ltd VS Purshotam Kumar Choubey & Orthers, FAO (OS) 494/2015 and CM. 17816/2015.
3) M/s Paridhi Udyog Vs Jagdev Raj Sarwan Ram Dhiman, CS (COMM) 313/2018.
11. The judgments are relied upon by learned counsel for defendant no.2 to submit that this court has no territorial jurisdiction.
12. Arguments considered. Record perused.
FINDINGS
13. Issue wise findings of the court are as under :-
Issue no. 1 :- Whether there is no cause of action against the defendant no.2 as defendant no.2 has no relation with defendant no.1? OPD.
14. Plaintiff has filed the present suit alleging infringement of its trademark and copyright in SHAKTI BHOG by defendant no.1 and 2 by using and adapting identical logo in class
30.
15. In its written statement defendant no.2 in para no.2 of preliminary objections stated "The applicant has coined and adopted the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG in Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 35 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 the year 2023 and has been continuously widely, extensively and uninterruptedly using the same for and upon the said goods.....
.....The said goods of the applicant are provided through different platforms and complex trade value chains with involvement of individual from different fields..... The actual presence of the applicant, his said goods and the said mark is massive across complex trade value chains whole sale, retail and associations and off line market places. The actual presence of the applicant, his said goods and said mark is massive across complex trade value chain off line market places. Therefore the applicant enjoys handsome goodwill and recognition in the market among the public at large."
16. These averments in the written statement amount to admission by the defendant no.2 that he was in use of the trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG. Plaintiff has claimed that such user amounts to the infringement of the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. Hence, there is a clear cause of action for filing the present suit against the defendant no.2, independent of his relation with defendant no.1. The court is not satisfied with the submissions of learned counsel for defendant no.2 that there is no territorial jurisdiction with this court. It is the case of plaintiff that the goods were being sold at Khari Baoli within the jurisdiction of this court. Defendant no.1 has accepted the same and has further stated in the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 36 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 application under order XXIII rule 3 CPC that the goods were being sold by defendant no.1 under the influence of defendant no.2. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff before this court cannot be said to be barred by territorial jurisdiction. Defendant no.2 did not even press an specific issue in this respect at the time of framing the issues. No application for framing of additional issue was moved. Even in the paragraph on reply on merits, there is only general denial of the facts stated in the plaint as regards territorial jurisdiction.
17. This issue is accordingly decided against the defendant no.2.
Issue no.2 :- Whether the Defendant no.2's impugned mark "MAHA SHAKTI BHOG" is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark SHAKTI BHOG? OPP.
18. The trademark SHAKTI BHOG is written in capital letters. Trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG allegedly claimed by defendant no.2 is also written in capital letters with a prefix MAHA in the trademark of the plaintiff. The trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG is further written under the similar logo and the red colour scheme as used by plaintiff for its trademark. It has to be kept in mind that the impugned goods in class 30 being Atta, Maida etc. are being used by the common people including educated and uneducated class. Furthermore, it Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 37 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 is rightly submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that dominant portion of both the mark is SHAKTI BHOG. Any unwary customer can be confused and consider the products of the defendant no.2 with MAHA SHAKTI BHOG trademark to be related with the plaintiff.
19. In the case of Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs Satyadeo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449, the Apex Court upheld the injunction against the use of word "Lakshmandhara" holding that the same violates the trademark Amritdhara. It was held that the two names are medicinal preparation of the same description and that a critical comparison of two names may disclose some points of difference, but an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would be deceived by the overall similarity.
20. In the present case also plaintiffs and defendant no.2 both operate in the same field of Atta, Maida, Suji etc. in class 30. Just putting a prefix 'MAHA' with the SHAKTI BHOG mark of the plaintiff, do not entitle the defendant no.2 to use the prior used registered trademark of the plaintiff. Any ordinary person may be deceived by seeing the prefix word 'MAHA' before the word 'SHAKTI BHOG '.
21. It is therefore held that impugned mark of defendant no.2 MAHA SHAKTI BHOG is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark SHAKTI BHOG. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff. Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 38 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 Issue no.3 :- Whether the use of the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG by the Defendant no. 2 amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark SHAKTI BHGOG ? OPP.
22. Section 29 of The Trademarks Act 1999 postulates the circumstances resulting in infringement of a registered trademark. Same is extracted herein below :-
29. Infringement of registered trade marks.--(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.
(2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of--
(a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 39 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
(3) In any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2), the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
(4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which--
(a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
(5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he--
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 40 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 registered trade mark;
(c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
(d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising.
(7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labeling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee.
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising--
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.
(9) Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that no trademark license has been proved by the defendant no.2 in its favour for use of the trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG. It appears to be rightly submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that Registrar of Trademark does not Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 41 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 grant any licenses as alleged by the defendant no.2. Further in his cross-examination DW-1 stated "The license referred by me in para 3 of my affidavit as issued by the Registrar of Trademark in respect of trademark "Maha Shakti Bhog" for a period of 05 years may be on some papers which I am not carrying today." The witness further stated in his cross-examination "My concurrent use of the trademark Maha Shakti Bhog started from 19.08.2014 but the mark was opposed in the month of September 2024 by plaintiff herein, I did not continue with that use."
24. In the pleadings as well as in the evidence it is not rebutted by defendant no.2 that the plaintiff through its predecessors, is the proprietor of the registered trademark SHAKTI BHOG in class 30 for the goods including flour, daal, besan etc. at-least since 1982. Defendant no.2 has not claimed proprietorship of its trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG. It has been already held while deciding issue no.2 that the said trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG is deceptively similar to the registered trademark SHAKTI BHOG of the plaintiff. Defendant no.2 has failed to prove that he has any license from the Registrar of Trademark or from the plaintiff to use the trademark SHAKTI BHOG, MAHA SHAKTI BHOG or any other identical or deceptively similar mark. Hence, in humble opinion of this court following facts are established on record :-
Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 42 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024
i) Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trademark SHAKTI BHOG in class 30 for preparations including flour, maid, besan etc.
ii) Defendant no.2 is not the registered proprietor of license user of the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG or any other mark identical or similar to the registered trademark SHAKTI BHOG of plaintiff.
iii) The mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG of the defendant is identical or deceptively similar with the trademark of plaintiff.
iv) The identical or deceptively similar trademark of the defendant no.2 was/is used or attempted to be used in respect of the goods and preparations covered by the registered trademark of plaintiff.
v) Defendant no.2 could have known about the registration of the trademark of plaintiff in class 30 by a little search at trademark registry for the goods and preparations.
vi) Defendant no.2 by his own pleadings of massive presence in trade value chains and marketing places has admitted that the trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG was used by him for promoting his trade and business for the goods covered by registered trademark of plaintiff.
vii) The plaintiff had opposed application for registration of the trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG, hence defendant no.2 knew or had reason to believe that Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 43 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 the application of the mark was not authorized by the plaintiff proprietor of the trademark SHAKTI BHOG.
25. In the facts and circumstances, it can be safely said that the defendant no.2 has committed infringement of the registered SHAKTI BHOG trademark of plaintiff. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.4 :- Whether the use of the mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG by the Defendant No. 2 amounts to passing off its goods and business as those of the Plaintiff? OPP.
26. In the case of Sana Herbals Pvt Ltd. Vs Mohnsin Dehlvi, 2026 SCC OnLine, Del 21, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi discussed necessary ingredients of a passing-off action and held :-
17.1 The aspect of goodwill 17.1.1 Passing off, as a common law tort, has three ingredients, viz. (i) goodwill of the plaintiff in the mark, (ii) misrepresentation, by the defendant, of his goods as those of the plaintiff, by using an identical or deceptively similar mark and
(iii) damage to the plaintiff as a consequence.
17.1.2 In Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd, the Supreme Court has clarified that this accumulation of goodwill, by the plaintiff, had to be prior to commencement of user of the mark by the defendant. This position Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 44 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 stands reiterated in, inter alia, Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra.
17.1.3 Where the user of the mark by the defendant is prior to commencement of user of the mark by the plaintiff, therefore, the possibility of passing off stands ipso facto ruled out.
In para no. 17.3.3, Hon'ble Court emphasized that to succeed in an action for passing-off, the plaintiff has to establish that prior to adoption of the mark by the defendant, it had accumulated goodwill and reputation, on which the defendant was seeking to ride.
27. It is not controverted in evidence of the plaintiff that plaintiff through its predecessor is using the trademark SHAKTI BHOG since the year 1975. The plaintiff has proved the use of its mark by its predecessor by proving sale invoices Ex.PW1/22 (colly). Plaintiff became proprietor/assignee of the mark by virtue of assignment deed dated 30.12.2017. Invoices of the sale of goods by plaintiff after the date of assignment are Ex.PW1/24 (colly) and Ex.PW1/27 (colly). Bills of advertisement including newspapers advertisement by plaintiff are proved as Ex.PW1/23. The plaintiff has thus proved prior, continuous and extensive use and goodwill in the trademark SHAKTI BHOG. Defendant no.2 has taken contradictory pleas in the written statement. On the one hand defendant no.2 stated that his goods are provided through different platforms and that his actual Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 45 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 presence through trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG is massive across the market. On the other hand it is stated that he has not sold any item under the trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG since the date of allotment of the trademark license dated 19.08.2024.
28. The total turn-over of the plaintiff in the financial year 2021-2022, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 as per the turn over certificate Ex.PW1/28 was Rs.93,62,85,078, Rs.152,74,53,681 and Rs.162,81,79,875 respectively.
29. Ex.PW1/23 i.e. the copy of the advertisements and the advertisement bills clearly reflects that the plaintiff has incurred expenses for promotion of its SHAKTI BHOG brand flour and has got published the same in different newspapers much prior to the defendant no.2 attempting to adopt trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG. If the defendant no.2 had done some research, he must have known about the existence of the trademark of the plaintiff from inspection at trademark Registry or by coming across the advertisements published by plaintiff.
30. It can therefore be safely said that :-
i) Prior to the use and adoption by the defendant no.2, plaintiff had already acquired a goodwill in the mark SHAKTI BHOG.
ii) By using the prefix MAHA prior to the trademark of plaintiff, defendant no.2 had attempted to create an impression that the goods with trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG are some superior or more Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 46 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 potential version of the SHAKTI BHOG articles of plaintiff.
iii) Acts of defendant no.2 amounts to riding goodwill of plaintiff.
31. In humble opinion of this court, all ingredients for a passing-off action are satisfied in favour of plaintiff. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.5 :- Whether the use of the mark or on behalf of the Defendant no. 2 amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's Copyright in SHAKTI BHOG? OPP.
32. In para no.9 of the plaint, it is stated that logo of is an original artistic work within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act 1957 and it is protected under the provisions of The Act along with several other packaging labels used to pack the goods under the marks SHAKTI BHOG and/or logo . In reply to the same, defendant no.2 stated in written statement "The answering defendant has also no knowledge about logo SHAKTI BHOG is also an original artistic work with the meaning of section 2 (c ) of Copy right Act 1957 and is protected under the provisions of Copyright Act 1957 along with several other packaging labels used to pack the goods under the marks "SHAKTI BHOG" or logo "SHAKTI BHOG". Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 47 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024
33. By unrebutted pleadings and by proving various advertisements prior to the user claim by defendant no.2, the plaintiff has successfully proved that it was in use of logo . A bare comparison of the alleged logo reflects that defendants have attempted to adopt the same pattern of writing with similar colour combination trade-dress and bordering etc. which clearly amounts to infringement of the artistic work of the plaintiff on its packaging and labels. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no. 6 :- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction as sought for in the Plaint? OPP
34. In view of the discussion of the court while deciding foregoing issues, plaintiff is held entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.2, his agents, servants, retailers, stockist, distributors etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising or dealing in food articles being Atta, Besan, Maida, Suji etc. in class 29 or class 30 under the impugned mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or logo and/or any other Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 48 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 mark confusingly or deceptively similar with the registered trademark SHAKTI BHOG and/or of the plaintiffs. Plaintiff is further held entitled to the decree of permanent injunction against the defendant no.2 against passing-off his goods with such trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or SHAKTI BHOG.
Plaintiff is further held entitled to decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from reproducing the impugned artistic work MAHA SHAKTI BHOG, or any other artisticc work, getup, layout, colour combination with the plaintiff's artistic work in any manner including but not limited to packaging, advertising in relation to food articles including ATTA, BESAN, MAIDA, SUJI etc. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.7 :- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing no.2 to withdraw the TM Application no. 575242 filed by him before the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi for registration of mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG in class 30? OPP.
35. Learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted that Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 49 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 the plaintiff is further entitled to decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.2 to withdraw or not to pursue the TM Application no. 575242 MAHA SHAKTI BHOG. Plaintiff has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Haldiram India Pvt Ltd. Vs Berachah Sales Corporation, CS (COMM) 495/2019, whereby Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while permanently restraining the defendant was pleased to direct that all applications filed by the defendant shall be rejected by Registrar of Trademark.
36. Without going into details, this court is of the opinion that no direction should be passed to the Authority which is not even a party to the present case. The registration or non-registration of any trademark applied before it, may be decided by the concerned Registrar as per law. In humble opinion of this court, no directions are required to be passed by this court.
37. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.8 :- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts of profits, and recovery of amounts found due? OPP.
38. In his affidavit in evidence in para no.42, DW-1 stated " The deponent has nothing in his possession as stock of packing material for the impugned goods publicity material, packaging material etc., bearing the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 50 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 impugned marks, hence the deponent is not liable to furnish any inventory of such goods and material which is not in power and possession of the deponent. The rest contents of the para 47 are wrong and denied and is not applicable upon the deponent in any manner".
39. There is no cross-examination of this witness for rebutting this particular part of testimony. Moreover, the pleadings in written statement prima facie suggest that order for rendition of account may be a futile exercise and unnecessary delay the execution of the judgment and decree. Furthermore, the plaintiff has already prayed for a decree of damages against the defendant no.2 for committing alleged infringing and passing-off activities. Hence, this court is inclined to decline the relief of rendition of accounts as prayed. Such opinion of the court is in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed on 21.03.2022 in Imaging Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Green Accessories through its proprietor and Anr. passed in CS (Comm.) 564/2020, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235, wherein Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
12. Since the Defendants have not appeared and rendered any accounts of profits, the said relief as sought in paragraph 30(d) is rejected. Insofar as the relief of delivering up as sought in paragraph 30(e) is concerned, the Plaintiff or a representative thereof, is permitted to visit the premises of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, upon which the Defendant Nos.1 and 6 shall Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 51 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 handover all the seized products to the representatives of the Plaintiff for the purpose of destruction.
13. Insofar as the relief of damages as sought in paragraph 30(f) is concerned, it is clear to this Court that the Defendants have blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products. Considering the quantum of counterfeit products which was seized from Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, the suit is decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.
Since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages are being imposed on the said Defendant. Let the said amounts be paid to the Plaintiff within two weeks.
40. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.9 :- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/-, or of any other amount, against the Defendant No.2? OPP.
41. Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the infringement and passing-off by defendant were deliberate and calculated torts intended to unlawfully benefit from the plaintiff's long goodwill and the malafide intent is evident from severe visual copying. He further argued that given the high value of plaintiff's reputation, the court must award the claimed damages.
Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 52 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 He relied upon judgment in the case of Himalaya Global Holdings Limited and Another Vs Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1601, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi emphasized the necessity of awarding punitive damages in cases of willful and deliberate intellectual property infringement to deter future violations.
42. The court is however of the opinion that keeping in view that the plaintiff could not give any details of the retailers or wholesalers except defendant no.1, through which the impugned products were sold by the defendant no.2, except the defendant no.1, the damages of Rs.50,00,000/- would be in excessive. The defendant no.2 has stated that he is a cancer patient and since 19.08.2024, he has not sold any item in the Indian market and that being a cancer patient under treatment, is unable to do any type of business at present. In the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that even though the plaintiff has established willful infringement of its trademark and copyright by defendant no.2, damages of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) would suffice ends of justice. This issue is decided accordingly partly in favour of plaintiff.
Relief:-
43. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost and a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 53 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024 defendant no.2, his agents, servants, retailers, stockist, distributors etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising or dealing in food articles being Atta, Besan, Maida, Suji etc. in class 29 or class 30 under the impugned mark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or logo and/or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar with the registered trademark SHAKTI BHOG and/or of the plaintiffs is passed. A permanent injunction against the defendant against passing-off his goods with such trademark MAHA SHAKTI BHOG and/or SHAKTI BHOG is also passed. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.2 from reproducing the impugned artistic work MAHA SHAKTI BHOG or any other artisticc work, getup, layout, colour combination with the plaintiff's artistic work in any manner including but not limited to packaging, advertising in relation to food articles including ATTA, BESAN, MAIDA, SUJI etc. is also passed. Suit of the plaintiff is further decreed for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only).
Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 54 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024
44. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
45. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed on the 16th day of May, 2026 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2026.05.16 16:07:16 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Kumar Food Industries Ltd Vs M/s Karan Foods & Anr. Page no. 55 of 55 CS Comm 842/2024