Delhi District Court
M/S Utkarsh Foods Products vs Devansh Food Products on 22 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 456/2025
CNR No. DLSH01-004086-2025
M/s Utkarsh Foods Products
Through its proprietor Swati Panwar,
W/o Yogendra Singh Panwar,
R/o Village Govindpur, P.O. Gularbhojj,
Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand
Also at,
Building No. C-67 /X-1, Block C
Near Perfect Tyagi Hospital, Dilshad Garden
Shahdara, New Delhi-110095
.....Plaintiff.
Versus
1.Devansh Food Products Through its proprietor Chapla Mandal Gandhi Nagar Ward Nol, Dinesh Pur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand, 263160
2. Kamlesh Mandal Gandhi Nagar Ward Nol, Dinesh Pur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand,263160 ....Defendants Date of Filing of the case : 16.07.2025 Date of conclusion of the final arguments : 09.04.2026 Date of judgment : 22.04.2026 EXPARTE JUDGMENT The present commercial suit for infringement of Trademark, Passing off, Unfair competition and permanent Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar kumar Date:
2026.04.22 15:34:08 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 1 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi injunction has been filed to restrain the defendant from using the Trade Mark "DKM Fresh". It is stated that Mr. Utkarsh Panwar, is the Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff who has been duly authorized to sign, verify, institute, depose, and to represent the Plaintiff in the present proceedings. It is averred that the plaintiff is a proprietorship firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of food products such as BESAN, ATTA, MAIDA, SUJI AND DALIA, and has been operating the said businesses since 1998. The business of the Plaintiff is also registered with GST authorities as well as FSSAI. That in order to distinguish their quality products from other manufacturers, the Plaintiff adopted and coined a number of distinctive trademarks and labels which are protected and duly registered under the Trademarks Act and by virtue of intensive and extensive use have acquired a handsome reputation and goodwill in the market. The products of the plaintiff were meeting the standards of goods and expanding its business in many other goods falling under different classes of goods. The plaintiff has been manufacturing, selling and distributing its products since 1998 with the particular Registered House mark along with its get-up, colour scheme and overall trade dress "HOME FRESH" in various classes.
2. It is further averred that the Plaintiff is continuously using without any hindrance its Registered House marks comprising of all the trappings of an inventive mark and has been diligent in protecting its intellectual property and has always taken required measures whenever any third party has tried to misappropriate or copy plaintiff's registered mark. The Plaintiff is extremely vigilant about protecting their esteemed Registered House Marks, sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.04.22 kumar 15:34:15 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 2 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi against imitations which may cause commercial inconvenience or embarrassment, or calculated to deceive or cause confusion in the public, or enable other goods to be mistaken or sold or passed off as the goods originating from that of the Plaintiff as the use of any identical/deceptively similar trademark would tarnish the hard-earned reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also invested huge sum of money, tremendous time and labor and had created a unique and peculiar Registered Trademark and acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation in various countries around the world.
3. It is further averred that the Plaintiff had applied for Registered House Marks as mentioned in para-7 of the plaint and the same have already been registered. It is further averred that Plaintiff has also obtained a Copyright Search Certificate bearing No. TMR-CC. No 138461 in respect of the artistic work embodied in its trade dress, packaging, label design, and overall get-up of the product, which protects the original artistic expression used in the packaging, including the colour scheme, layout, and graphical elements, which collectively constitute a unique and distinguishable trade dress.
4. It is averred that as a result of the continuous use along with the advertisement and promotional work, the Registered House Marks have become distinctive to the Plaintiff and not to anyone else and its trademarks have acquired immense distinctiveness, consumer recognition, and secondary significance in the market.
5. It is stated that the Plaintiff's said trade mark/label sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar kumar Date: 2026.04.22 15:34:21 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 3 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi has become a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
6. It is further stated that Defendant is a proprietorship concern, operating in the name and style of Devansh Food Products and it is registered in the name of Chapla Mandal w/o Kamtesh Mandal and the Defendant had also applied for the trademark registration of the Device mark 'DKM FRESH SPICES' in the same class as of the Plaintiff's registered trademark.
7. It is further averred that in the month February 2025, the Plaintiff came to know through market sources that the Defendants have dishonestly adopted and begun using an identical and deceptively similar trademark for identical goods falling under the same category, i.e., food items such as spices and atta. The Defendants have unauthorizedly adopted and used the trademark of the Plaintiff with malafide intention to trade upon the valuable goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiff's trademark. Due to the infringing activities of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is facing damages and loss of business.
The business goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff is affected by the Defendant's selling of their infringing low-quality products. It is further averred that by using the same, similar or deceptively similar trademark by Defendants resulted in misrepresentation made during the course of trade to Plaintiff's potential customers, which amounts to infringement of the rights CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 4 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.04.22 kumar 15:34:28 +0530 of the Plaintiff and which would be calculated to injure the business and/or goodwill of the Plaintiff, and caused substantial damages to the said business and/or goodwill of the Plaintiff besides passing off their goods as goods of the Plaintiff.
8. It is further stated that the defendants have deliberately and with mala fide intentions copied the Registered Trade mark "HOME FRESH" of Plaintiff and that imitated trademark "DKM FRESH" is a copy being exactly similar to the Plaintiff's particular Registered Trade Mark "HOME FRESH" which is causing confusion and deception among the ordinary purchasers. The plaintiff has relied upon comparative photographs of its original product, displaying trademarks and logo of plaintiff company, as well as that of infringing products to point out as to how defendant is manufacturing and selling goods which are deceptively similar to the goods of the plaintiff, but of much inferior quality. Thus aggrieved by infringement and passing of its trademark "HOME FRESH" the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying that :
(i) Pass an ex-parte injunction order/decree that the Defendants cease and desist from using trademark " "or any other marks that are similar/identical to our client's trademark in any manner whatsoever with immediate effect;
(ii) Pass an ex-parte injunction order/decree that the Defendants cease and desist from using trademark " "or any other marks that are similar/identical to our client's trademark amounting to passing off the defendants goods for those of the plaintiff's or doing any other thing which may lead to Passing Off.
(iii) Pass an ex-parte injunction order/decree that Defendant cease and desist from using trademark " "or markings using these trademarks CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 5 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.04.22 kumar 15:34:36 +0530 in any advertising campaigns or offers, and in the form of markings on correspondences, packages, markings Defendants premises or markings on any goods or services with immediate effect;
(iv) Pass an ex-parte injunction order/decree that Defendant cease and desist from using or reproducing the same in any material from or using the same or any colorable imitation thereof or otherwise howsoever amounting to infringement of copyright subsisting therein including Copyright registration No CC No. 138461.
(v) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that Defendants desist forthwith the advertising for publicity, exposing for promotion, selling or otherwise exhibiting or disposing of anywhere any services of Defendant bearing the trademark " ".
(vi) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that Defendant withdraws from the market any and all services and advertising or marketing materials with the trademark " " as well as any and all products/websites labelled with trademark " "with immediate effect;
(vii) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff for the destruction of all unused printed materials, and advertisement materials, bearing the trademark " "complained of used for the said purpose;
(viii) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that the Defendants furnish to the Plaintiff a list of distributors/channel partners to whom Defendants have been dealing with under the trademark " ".
(ix) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that Defendants render to the Plaintiff a full, complete, and accurate statement of accounts showing the services sold by Defendants under the impugned mark;
(x) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that the Defendants pay the sum of INR 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) as monetary compensation for violating the Plaintiffs proprietary rights along with the pendente lite.
(xi) Pass an ex-parte order/decree that Defendants give the Plaintiff an unconditional apology that Defendants will not at any time hereof deal, sell, receive orders, advertise, expose for sale, dispose of, exhibit or otherwise deal directly or indirectly in any kind of or any other mark or labels, which are identical or similar to that of the Plaintiff's tradename/trademark.
CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 6 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.04.22 kumar 15:34:44 +0530
9. After filing of the present suit, summons of the suit for settlement of issues and notice of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 were issued to the defendants. But, despite due service through electronic mode on 'Whatsapp' on 31.12.2025, none has appeared on behalf of the defendant. Vide order dated 06.01.2026, a period of two weeks was granted to the defendant to file the written statement. The defendant, however, did not appear before the Court to contest the case by filing Written Statement. Accordingly, the defendant was proceeded 'exparte' vide order dated 29.01.2026.
10. In order to prove its case plaintiff examined its Special Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Utkarsh Panwar as PW-1. He has reiterated the averments made in plaint in his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A. He has relied upon following documents :-
Sr. Document Exhibit No.
No.
1 Copy of Non-Starter Report dated Ex.PW1/1
21.05.2025
2 Special Power of Attorney dated Ex.PW1/2
05.07.2025
3 Copy of GST Certificate Ex.PW1/3
4 Copy of FSSAI Certificates Ex.PW1/4
5 Copy of Trade Mark Registration Ex.PW-1/5
Certificates (Colly.)
6 Copy of Copyright Search Certificate Ex.PW1/6
7 True print out of trademark application Ex. PW1/7
of the defendant bearing No.6769492 (Colly.) 8 Copy of Legal notice dated 12.02.2025 Ex.PW1/8 9 Copy of reply to cease-and-desist Ex.PW1/9 notice dated 22.03.2025 sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 7 of 12 kumar 15:34:51 +0530 Date: 2026.04.22 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi
11. No other witness was examined on behalf of plaintiff.
12. Arguments were addressed by Sh. Abhishek Dev, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint and has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff. I have also gone through the record.
14. For the purposes of rendition of accounts/damages, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of damages, punitive damages to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- and costs of the suit.
16. As far as the calculation of damages is concerned, there is no documentary evidence placed on record in support thereof. From the averments made in the plaint, it appears that defendant has imitated trademark 'DKM FRESH' which is exactly similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'HOME FRESH', which is causing confusion and deception among the ordinary purchasers, resulting the plaintiff facing damages and loss of business. Although it is claimed that above-mentioned illegal acts and business activities of the defendant have caused irreparable loss, injury and damage to the goodwill, reputation and business of the plaintiff, there is nothing mentioned in the affidavit of PW1/Sh. Utkarsh Panwar nor has plaintiff placed on record any other document from which it can be ascertained as to what was the price/rate of damages claimed. Apparently no books of account or invoices or any other document was placed on record. Further, there is no document on record from which figures of sales made by defendant in a day or a week or in a month can be ascertained. The plaintiff has also not mentioned the price at which it was sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar kumar Date: 2026.04.22 15:34:58 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 8 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi selling the original product but considering the averment in the plaint that defendant were selling identical and/or deceptively or confusing similar products, it can be safely concluded that the infringing goods must have been sold at comparatively lesser price than the original products of the plaintiff. No calculation of damages has been provided by the plaintiff. During the course of arguments, the plaintiff has pressed for grant of punitive damages. The quantum of punitive damages has not been given in the prayer clause of the plaint. The PW-1/Sh. Utkarsh Panwar has not given any approximate calculation of sales made by defendant. As already observed, there is no cogent basis of calculation thereof. After considering totality of facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the damages cannot be granted to the plaintiff.
17. No order for disclosure of information is passed, as noth- ing has been brought on record by plaintiff from which it can be ascertained that defendant had advertised/ places any links, posts, listings, pictures etc. directly associating defendant with plaintiff. Further as defendant is ex-parte directions to disclose informa- tion about his alleged suppliers selling infringing products of plaintiff company cannot be given.
18. The plaintiff has also filed on record the design/packaging of its products packing and the infringed design/packaging of de- fendants products. It is clear and apparent from the comparison that Defendants have copied the packaging design, trade dress and pattern as that of the Plaintiff and is attempting to piggy ride upon the goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff created for more than two decades. Digitally signed sudesh by sudesh kumar kumar Date:
2026.04.22 15:35:05 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 9 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi Packaging Design of Utkarsh Packaging Design of the Foods and Products DKM Fresh
19. In view of observations made above, the plaintiff is entitled to the following reliefs:-
(i) The plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 10 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi against defendant. Accordingly, the defendant, its associates and agents, employees, manufacturers, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assigns are hereby restrainined from using the trademark "DKM Fresh" and/or any other trademark and logos deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered marks and logos of the plaintiff company thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark.
(ii) Further the defendant, its associates and agents, employees, manufacturers, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assigns from using copyright in the mark of the plaintiff and/or any other copyright and logos deceptively and confusingly similar to the artistic logo of the plaintiff company on any similar product as that of the plaintiff thereby infringing plaintiff's copyright of the plaintiff company.
(iii) Further the defendant, his associates and agents, employees, distributors, representatives are restrained by passing a decree of permanent injunction, from passing off its goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff by using the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff and other registered trademarks of plaintiff in any form and manner and/or trademarks identical and/or confusingly or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff.
(iv) Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. sudesh Digitally signed by sudesh kumar Date: 2026.04.22 kumar 15:39:21 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 11 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi The decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on Digitally signed sudesh byDate:sudesh kumar this 22nd April 2026. kumar 2026.04.22 15:39:29 +0530 SUDESH KUMAR, District Judge, Commercial Court-01, Shahdara District, KKD, Delhi CS (Comm.) No. 456/25 page 12 of 12 D.J.(Commercial Court)-01/Shahdara/KKD/Delhi