Delhi District Court
Vijay Abrol vs Himanshu Rastogi on 13 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 1397/2024
Sh. Vijay Abrol,
trading as
M/s Brite Stationers and Manufacturers
2557-Teliwara, Mahavir Bazar,
Delhi-110006 Plaintiff
Vs
Sh. Himanshu Rastogi
Trading as M/s Smart Industries
Sector IV, B-8, Bawana Industrial Area
Bawana, West Delhi,
Delhi-110039 Defendant
Date of Institution : 18.12.2024
Date of Arguments : 03.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.10.2025
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE MARK, PASSING OFF; RENDITION OF ACCOUNT OF PROFITS, DAMAGES AND DELIVERY UP OF INFRINGING MATERIAL PLAINT
1. Present suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 1 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:36:53 +0530 account of profits, damages and delivery of infringing material has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant stating inter-alia in the plaint that :-
1.1. Plaintiff is carrying on its business of manufacturing and marketing of stationery goods including mathematical instruments, footrules, geometry box since 01.12.1992 under the tradename M/s Brite Stationers and Manufacturers.
1.2 Plaintiff is proprietor of trademark lables
such as (i) BRITE STATIONERS AND
MANUFACTURERS; (ii) SUMO and (iii) UNIVERSE etc., all registered under the Trade Marks Act 1999.
1.3 Trademark relevant for the present proceedings is label UNIVERSE in respect of mathematical instruments/geometry box duly registered under No. 1347068 dated 28.03.2005 in class 16 under Trade Marks Act 1999. Registration of said trade label is valid, subsisting and effective throughout India.
1.4 The trademark label UNIVERSE is unique and distinctive and plaintiff is continuously and extensively using the same since 01.04.2022.
1.5 Plaintiff has exclusive rights of the use of this trademark label UNIVERSE in relation to mathematical instruments/geometry box.
1.6 Plaintiff's trade label UNIVERSE has been widely advertised and plaintiff has spent several lakhs on the publicity of his brands.
Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 2 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY 14:36:59 +0530 Date: 2025.10.13 1.7 The said trademark label UNIVERSE is an original artistic work and plaintiff is owner of copyright in the said artistic work.
1.8 The defendant is in business of stationery goods including geometry box with tradename Smart Industries.
1.9 Recently it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant has adopted confusingly and deceptively similar label UNIVERSAL in respect of mathematical instruments with his tradename Smart. The trademark label of defendant is annexed with the plaint as Annexure D-1.
1.10 The trademark label UNIVERSAL adopted and used by defendant is phonetically, structurally and visually similar to the reputed trademark label UNIVERSE of plaintiff and adoption thereof by the defendant in a clandestine manner is illegal, unlawful and amounts to passing off of his goods as that of plaintiff's apart from infringement of trademark UNIVERSE of plaintiff.
1.11 Act and conduct of defendant therefore amounts to misrepresentation to the prospective customers. Confusion and deception to customers is inevitable as the defendant's mark is deceptively similar and defendant operates in same area, trade with common customers.
1.12 Acts of defendant also amount to exploit the Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 3 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:06 +0530 goodwill and reputation of plaintiff and passing off his inferior quality mathematical instruments as that of plaintiff's superior quality mathematical instruments.
1.13 Reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff is eroded due to use of identical artistic label by defendant by using inferior and sub-standard quality of mathematical instruments which has caused irreparable loss to plaintiff. Hence, defendant is liable to be restrained from doing so.
1.14 Defendant is doing his illegal activities without license and permission from the plaintiff and liable to render true and complete accounts of profits earned by infringement of trademark UNIVERSE, passing off and reproduction of artistic work, deceptively and confusingly similar to that of plaintiff's.
1.15 Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of rendition of accounts at Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.200/- each for other reliefs claimed in the suit.
1.16 Plaintiff instituted pre-litigation mediation proceedings on 07.06.2024 which culminated into a non- starter report dated 01.10.2024. Non-starter report was issued on 12.11.2024.
1.17 Hence, the present suit for injunction, restraining the defendant from using, selling, display, distribution, advertisement or in any other manner dealing in mathematical instruments/geometry box under the trademark label UNIVERSAL or any other Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 4 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:12 +0530 trademark label which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark UNIVERSE.
1.18 Similarly, injunction against the defendant from passing off his goods with trademark label UNIVERSAL or any trademark label similar to the label UNIVERSE of plaintiff is prayed. A decree for delivery of all infringing material for destruction and a decree of rendition of accounts of profit earned by defendant by use of trademark UNIVERSAL is also prayed along with cost of suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
2. Defendant was duly served with summons of suit and filed his written statement.
2.1 It is inter-alia stated in the preliminary objections of written statement that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and suit is liable to be rejected under VII rule 11 CPC.
2.2 It is further stated that defendant is successfully running his business for several years and holds a strong reputation in the market.
2.3 It is further stated that the plaintiff has filed present suit to exert undue pressure upon the defendant.
2.4 It is further stated that defendant has never used the trademark UNIVERSAL. Every sale and Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 5 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:18 +0530 purchase undertaken by defendant is duly documented including the generation of valid tax invoice and maintenance of taxation records with GST. Additionally the defendant engages in the wholesale trade of goods and no transaction is feasible without adhering to GST compliance.
2.5 It is further stated that plaintiff has not presented any credible or concrete evidence to substantiate the claim that defendant used the trademark UNIVERSAL in relation to any products including geometry boxes.
2.6 It is further stated that plaintiff is misusing the judicial process in order to harass and pressurize the defendant by filing frivolous and baseless allegations.
2.7 It is further stated that plaintiff is further attempting to create a false connection between the defendant's firm 'Smart Industries' and alleged geometry box bearing the name Smart. Defendant never manufactured, sold or dealt with the said geometry box and is completely unaware of its origin. Plaintiff appears to have fabricated his claim and introduced the alleged geometry box solely to exert undue pressure on the defendant which amounts to fabricating the evidence.
2.8 It is further stated that plaintiff is a habitual litigator who has been consistently engaged in frivolous and vexatious litigation to harass legitimate businesses. Plaintiff is also a habitual infringer of well-known Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 6 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:27 +0530 trademarks and has faced multiple legal proceedings wherein courts have granted permanent injunction against him for unauthorized use of reputed trademarks.
2.9 It is further stated that plaintiff did not comply with mandatory requirement for filing electronic evidence as prescribed under section 63 of BSA 2023.
2.10 In reply on merits, defendant does not deny the registration of plaintiff's trademark but vehemently disputed the date of user as stated in the plaintiff's trademark application. It is stated that plaintiff has misrepresented the actual date of use of mark. It is denied that plaintiff is engaged in the business since 01.12.1992. It is reiterated again and again in written statement that defendant has never used the trademark UNIVERSE or UNIVERSAL and plaintiff has failed to provide any concrete evidence such as sales records, advertisement, promotional activities to substantiate his claim. It is further stated that plaintiff's claims are speculative, unsubstantiated and intended to harass legitimate business by creating artificial monopolies. Allegations in the preliminary objections are reiterated including the allegation that plaintiff has a history of habitual trademark infringement and vexatious litigation. Any infringement or passing off by defendant is denied and dismissal of suit is prayed.
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY PANDEY Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:33 +0530 Page no. 7 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 REPLICATION
3. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reiterating facts stated in the plaint and denying contrary allegations of the written statement. It is reiterated in the replication that defendant is clandestinely selling his products and that mark "Smart", used by defendant appears on the geometry box with the printing of trademark UNIVERSAL by defendant. It is denied that plaintiff is attempting to create any false connection between defendant's firm "Smart Industries" and the alleged geometry box bearing the name "Smart".
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, following issues were framed :-
1) Whether the defendant has infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff ? OPP
2) Whether the defendant has passed off his goods bearing the trade mark/name of the plaintiff? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunctions as prayed for ? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of account or in alternate to the decree of damages, if so, to what amount of damages ? OPP Digitally signed Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Page no. 8 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:40 +0530
6) Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. Plaintiff Sh. Vijay Abrol, filed his evidence in affidavit and examined himself as PW-1. During his testimony he proved the documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/32 which were mentioned in affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A.
6. Defendant Sh. Himanshu Rastogi, filed his evidence in affidavit and examined himself as DW-1. He has not proved any document.
ARGUMENTS
7. Both the learned counsels for the parties addressed final arguments. Learned counsel for plaintiff also filed written submissions.
8. Learned Sh. P.K. Jain, Advocate for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has duly proved its case against the defendant. The defendant has infringed the registered trademark of plaintiff due to which plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss.
9. Learned Sh. Ravi Chauhan, Advocate for defendant argued that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to exert undue pressure upon the defendant. Defendant has never used the trademark UNIVERSAL. It is further argued that plaintiff has not presented any credible or concrete evidence to substantiate the claim Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 9 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:46 +0530 that defendant used the trademark UNIVERSAL in relation to any products including geometry boxes. It is also argued that plaintiff is further attempting to create a false connection between the defendant's firm 'Smart Industries' and alleged geometry box bearing the name Smart. He further argued that defendant never manufactured, sold or dealt with the said geometry box and is completely unaware of its origin.
10. Arguments considered. Record perused.
FINDINGS
11. Issue wise findings of court are as under:-
Issue no.1 :- Whether the defendant has infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff ? OPP
12. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. Sh.
P.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has successfully discharged onus to prove this issue. He argued that the plaintiff has successfully proved registration of his trademark UNIVERSE. He further argued that defendant has admitted in his cross- examination that he used the trade marks mentioned in EX. DW-1/P1 and all those trade marks bear the logo Smart. He submitted that the impugned product with trade mark UNIVERSAL also bear the logo Smart which clearly associates the defendant with the trade mark UNIVERSAL.
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY PANDEY Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Page no. 10 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:53 +0530
13. He further argued that the deposition of defendant to the effect that he never used the trade mark UNIVERSAL is negated in view of appearance of logo Smart in the impugned infringed product as well as in the admitted list of defendant's trademarks in Ex. DW-1/P1.
14. Learned Sh. P.K. Jain further submitted that defendant is selling off his products clandestinely and, therefore, plaintiff could not obtain any invoice or purchase receipt of the infringing products sold by defendant.
15. This Court is of the humble opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge onus to prove this issue. In the pleadings as well as in his testimony, constant stand of the defendant is that he never used the trade mark UNIVERSAL nor manufactured or marketed any goods with the said trade mark. Plaintiff has vaguely stated in the pleadings as well as in his evidence that recently it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant has adopted the trade mark or label UNIVERSAL. Source of knowledge of the plaintiff about such user by defendant is not disclosed. Particulars of any shop or other place, where the product with the label UNIVERSAL is being sold or displayed by the defendant is not specified. The date when the plaintiff got to know about such user by defendant is not spelled. There is not a single invoice from the defendant or any Digitally signed Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 11 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:38:00 +0530 person associated with the defendant to reflect that the defendant has ever sold the product with trade mark UNIVERSAL. No market survey conducted by the plaintiff about availability of such product in the market is referred to in the plaint or evidence. In his cross- examination PW-1 stated that the factory of defendant is situated in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He further stated "I have never visited factory of defendant. It is correct that I have not seen defendant printing the artistic device as shown in Ex. PW-1/2 or similar artistic device in shape of geometry box". Thereafter, suggestion was given to PW-1 that the defendant never manufactured any geometry box picture of which is reflected in Ex. PW-1/D1. PW-1 denied the suggestion that because the defendant never manufactured any such geometry box, therefore, no receipt or other document to connect the alleged geometry box with the defendant was filed. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that there was no cause of action for filing the present suit against defendant as he never violated alleged trade mark or trade device of plaintiff.
16. There is no admission in the cross-examination of the defendant of user of alleged trade mark or trade device. Mere printout or picture of some geometry box with purported trade mark UNIVERSAL and logo Smart, is not sufficient to presume that the defendant is manufacturing, selling or marketing any geometry box as Digitally signed by AJAY Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi AJAY PANDEY Page no. 12 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 PANDEY Date:
2025.10.13 14:38:05 +0530 shown in the picture. Court cannot act upon the submissions of Learned Counsel for plaintiff that because the defendant is selling off his products clandestinely, the plaintiff could not obtain any invoice or receipt etc. There is no photograph of the defendant with the alleged infringing product. No witness has been examined to specifically point out that the defendant was seen manufacturing or marketing alleged infringing products on any specific day at a certain place.
17. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus to prove this issue that the defendant has infringed trade mark of the plaintiff.
18. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.2 :- Whether the defendant has passed off his goods bearing the trade mark/name of the plaintiff? OPP.
And Issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunctions as prayed for ? OPP And Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
19. Onus to prove these issues was again upon plaintiff. While deciding issue no. 1, the Court has Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 13 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:38:16 +0530 already held that there is no positive proof that defendant is associated with manufacturing, marketing or selling of the alleged product or geometry box with trade mark UNIVERSAL. Plaintiff has not stated where the alleged infringed goods are stored or stocked by the defendant to direct him to produce the alleged infringing goods for the purpose of destruction. No Local Commissioner was sought to verify or seize the alleged infringing products stored or kept by defendant at any place or marketed by any person on behalf of or associated with the defendant. Hence, no reliefs for injunction(s) as prayed, can be granted in favour of plaintiff.
20. All these issues are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no.5 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of account or in alternate to the decree of damages, if so, to what amount of damages ? OPP
21. Consequence of deciding the previous issues against the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief or rendition of accounts. It is not stated by plaintiff that any accounts of the sale of alleged infringing products are maintained by the defendant. Plaintiff has rather stated that the defendant is making clandestine sale of the alleged products. The Court cannot pass any decree of production of an article or accounts, existence of which is not certain. Any Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Page no. 14 of 15 Digitally signed CS Comm 1397/2024 by AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.10.13 14:38:23 +0530 unexecutable order should not be passed.
22. This issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Relief :-
23. In view of aforesaid discussion of court, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs in favour of the defendant.
24. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
25. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open court AJAY by AJAY PANDEY on the 13th day of October, 2025. PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:38:27 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Page no. 15 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024