Mintage Steels Limited & Anr vs Neelam Jain Trading As M/S Padam Shri ... on 30 July, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mintage Steels Limited & Anr vs Neelam Jain Trading As M/S Padam Shri ... on 30 July, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~41
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 763/2025 & I.A. 18093-18098/2025
                                    MINTAGE STEELS LIMITED & ANR.                                         .....Plaintiffs
                                                                  Through:            Mr. V.K. Puri, Ms. Anshima Puri and
                                                                                      Mr. Deepak Dhyani, Advs.

                                                                  versus

                                    NEELAM JAIN TRADING AS M/S PADAM
                                    SHRI STEEL                     .....Defendant
                                                 Through: None

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                                                  ORDER

% 30.07.2025 I.A. 18094/2025

1. The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'] has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from filing original/clear/legible copies at this stage.

2. Original documents shall be produced/filed at the time of Admission/Denial, if sought, strictly as per the provision of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ['Act of 2015'] and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ['DHC Rules'].

3. The clear/legible copies of the illegible documents be filed within two(2) weeks.

4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 18095/2025

5. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 1 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

6. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi1, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 18096/2025

8. This is an application filed under Order 11, Rule 1(4) CPC [as amended by the Act of 2015, read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file additional documents within thirty (30) days.

9. The Plaintiff if it intends to file additional documents shall file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Act of 2015 and DHC Rules.

10. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 18097/2025

12. This application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the Defendant.

13. This application will be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing.

CS(COMM) 763/2025

14. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of Plaintiff's 1 (2024) 5 SCC 15.

CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 2 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57 trademark/copyright and illegal adoption and mala fide and unauthorized use of deceptively similar trademark/packaging and copyright for sale and/or manufacture of similar/identical goods by the Defendant.

15. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

16. Summons be issued to Defendant by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2) weeks.

17. The summons shall indicate that the written statement must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendant shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiffs, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

18. The plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statement. The replications shall be accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendant, failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record.

19. The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

20. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

21. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

22. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 3 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

23. List before Court on 17.09.2025.

I.A. 18093/2025

24. This is an application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking interim injunction against the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising in print and electronic media, advertising on the internet, directly or indirectly dealing in any product by using its mark/label and its trade-dress and or any other trade mark/ trade-dress, which is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' well known trade mark, trade name/ trade-dress, get up, lay out and placement of distinctive features as used in the trade mark/label Plaintiffs' well known trade mark /label and its trade-dress amounting to action of passing off, misrepresentation, unfair competition and dilution.

25. Mr. V.K. Puri, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs states that Plaintiff No. 1 i.e., Mintage Steels Limited is engaged in the business of household or kitchen utensils and containers, cookware and tableware etc. since the year 2006.

25.1. He states that Plaintiff No. 2, Mr. Rajeev Bansal was trading under the name and style of M/s. Bansal Steels and was simultaneously engaged in the same business of household or kitchen utensils and containers since the year 2004 until February 2019.

25.2. He states that the word MINTAGE was originally coined, conceived by Plaintiff No. 2 long back in the year 2004, who had filed the said trademark under its proprietorship firm-M/s. Bansal Steels for its registration in the year 2006 for household/kitchen and other utensils and containers (i.e. kanastar, round dibba, tea containers, water filter, dustbin CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 4 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57 etc.) and obtained statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The details of the registration are set out at paragraph 6 of the plaint. 25.3. He states that Plaintiff No. 2, originally created the trademark/logo in the year 2004 and also got created artistic work involved in its trade-dress/packaging ['product packaging'] in the year 2015. 25.4. He states that vide ROC No. A-152970/2024, Plaintiff No.1 has also obtained copyright protection over the artistic work/label .

25.5. He states that Plaintiff No. 1 has obtained search certificate bearing CC No. 126942 over the artistic work involved in the said product packaging on 21.12.2023. The said product packaging is reproduced hereinbelow: -

25.6. He states that the Plaintiffs for its good/services have been extensively using the trademark/label MINTAGE/ and under the said trademark/label, the Plaintiffs have been exporting goods in national as well as international markets. He states that under the said CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 5 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

25.7. He states that on account of its longstanding usage coupled with prior applications, voluminous sales as well as extensive promotion, the said trademark/artistic works have become the exclusive proprietary interest of the Plaintiffs alone and no one else.

25.8. He states that the Plaintiffs have good financials and voluminous sales since its inception. He states that Plaintiff No. 1 has earned a revenue of Rs. 51.22 Crores in the year 2023-24. The details of the sales are set out at paragraph 12 of the plaint.

25.9. He states that Plaintiff No.1 is maintaining websites namely, www.mintagesteel.in and www.mintagesteel.com and Plaintiffs' goods/services are also available and being promoted/advertised through social media platforms viz. www.facebook.com, www.instagram.com as well as 'www.youtube.com'.

25.10. He states that in 2024, upon a search on the online data base of trademark registry, the Plaintiffs found that a trademark SINTAGE/ , bearing TM No. 5493344 ['impugned trademark'] has been registered for goods of household or kitchen utensils, included in Class 21 in the name of Mr. Vinay Jain.

25.11. He states that since Plaintiff's trademark, MINTAGE has been registered since 2006 but was not cited in the examination report; the trademark registry proceeded to grant registration. He states that Plaintiff No. 2 has filed a rectification/cancellation petition against the impugned CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 6 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

25.12. He states that in the defendant's application for the impugned trademark, sales invoices raised by M/s. Padam Shri Steel i.e., proprietorship concern of Ms. Neelam Jain [Defendant herein], have been uploaded. He states that the Plainttiffs are not aware as to how the Defendant is connected to Mr. Vinay Jain and therefore, by way of these proceedings has called upon the Defendant to disclose the nature of its business and relation with Mr. Vinay Jain.

25.13. He states that to Plaintiff's shock and dismay, in December 2024, the Plaintiffs came to know that the Defendant has been openly manufacturing, offering, marketing, selling household or kitchen utensils under the impugned trademark/label including the impugned trade dress/product packaging, which is deceptively similar/identical to the Plaintiff's trademark/label and Plaintiff's product packaging and thereby, resulting in infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of Plaintiffs' trademark/ copyright/artistic work.

The impugned trademark/label and impugned trade dress of the Defendant's product are reproduced herein as under: -

Impugned trademark/label of the Defendant's product

- SINTAGE/ Impugned trade dress of the Defendant's product CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 7 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57 25.14. He states that the Defendant maintains websites namely www.sintagesteel.com as well as www.padamshristeel.com. He states that the Defendant has also listed its business on various e-market websites as well as enjoys presence on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram.

25.15. He states that the Defendant has dishonestly and with mala fide intention adopted the impugned trademark/label including the impugned trade-dress/packaging, thereby using the leading, prominent feature, essential part, artistic work and color scheme of the Plaintiff's trademark/trade-dress/product packaging in order to sell counterfeited/inferior quality products in Delhi and other parts of the country in clandestine and surreptitious manner. 25.16. He states that the Defendant has merely replaced only the first letter 'M' of the Plaintiffs coined mark 'MINTAGE' with the letter 'S' in their impugned mark 'SINTAGE', while deliberately retaining all other essential and distinctive features, including the red and white color scheme and the CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 8 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57 stylized artistic aspects of the Plaintiffs' trade-dress/product packaging as above, thereby causing confusion and deception among customers.

He further states that upon perusal of the Defendant's impugned trademark/trade-dress, it reveals that the Defendant has slavishly copied the Plaintiffs' trademark/label/artistic work of 'MINTAGE' and it's packaging as aforesaid for their counterfeited goods/services. 25.17. He states that aggrieved by the aforesaid activities and conduct of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit and are seeking urgent interim reliefs in this application.

26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record.

27. The Plaintiffs are the registered owner of the trademark/label . Plaintiff has placed on record the ROC No. A-

152970/2024 for copyright protection over the artistic work/label . Plaintiff No. 1 has placed on record certificate bearing CC No. 126942 over the artistic work involved in the trade-dress/product packaging on 21.12.2023. The said product packaging is reproduced hereinbelow: -

CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 9 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57

28. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs has handed over the Plaintiff's packaging box for its product - 'Tea Pot' and the Defendant packaging box for Defendant's product - 'Tea Container', to this Court for comparison. This Court has examined the product packaging of the said products of the parties.

For ease of reference, the registered trademark/label as well as the trade-dress of the Plaintiffs and the impugned trademark/label as well as trade-dress of the Defendant and, as set out in the plaint, is reproduced hereinbelow: -

                                                        Plaintiff's                                    Defendant's
                                          Trade Mark/Label/Artistic                        Trade Mark/Label/Artistic
                                                           Work                                              Work
                                                       MINTAGE                                           SINTAGE




                          CS(COMM) 763/2025                                                                                Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57

29. In the facts of this case, on a visual comparison the impugned trade- dress/product packaging of the Defendant is deceptively similar to the impugned trade-dress/product packaging of the Plaintiffs, and, to a person with average intelligence these two (2) boxes may appear to be identical. The colour combination is identical. The placement of essential features on the package is also identical.

The Plaintiff's trademark is MINTAGE and the Defendant's trademark is SINTAGE. However, on the Defendant's packaging 'S' has been stylized in various colours which merges in the red background, only highlighting INTAGE written in white colours visually. Looking at the packaging and the manner in which INTAGE is highlighted on the Defendant's packaging, the consumer is bound to associate the product of the Defendant with the product of the Plaintiffs. The product category is identical and the trade channel, as also the consumer base, is identical. This Court is therefore, satisfied that the trade-dress/packaging used by the Defendant for its products is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade- dress/packaging for its products.

30. For the aforesaid reasons, the Defendant, as well its legal heirs, proprietors, partners, associates, assignees in business, licensees, distributors and agents shall be restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising in print and electronic media, advertising on the internet, any further products in the impugned trade-dress/packaging or any other trade- dress/packaging which is deceptively similar to the trade-dress/packaging adopted by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant will take immediate steps for removing all listings on any social media platform or e-market place where its products are shown in the infringing trade-dress/packaging. Defendant CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 11 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57 will also take immediate steps for any advertisements for its products which show its products in the infringing trade-dress/packaging.

31. At this ex-parte stage, this Court is granting limited relief qua trade- dress/packaging. The other interim reliefs qua the impugned mark as sought by the Plaintiffs in this application will be considered by this Court on the next date of hearing.

32. Issue notice to the Defendant through all permissible modes, upon filing of process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing.

33. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of four (4) weeks, from receipt of notice. In its reply, the Defendant shall disclose the existing stock of the products using the impugned trade-dress/packaging, which is presently in stock with it.

34. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.

35. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done within a period of one (1) week from today.

36. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service and pleadings on 28.08.2025.

37. List before the Court on 17.09.2025.

38. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 30, 2025/msh/MG CS(COMM) 763/2025 Page 12 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:57

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders