Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

SISODIA 2025.09.19 14:58:25 +0530 CS DJ 5992/18 Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.) Vs. Nirankari Dham & Ors Page No.28 by 47

30. The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking protection from infringement and passing off its registered trademarks. Ld. Sr. Advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff is a socio, religious and charitable society which was registered in the year 1948 as "Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.)". The plaintiff society has as many as 17 trademarks registered in its name such as Sant Nirankari Mandal, Dhan Nirankar, Ek Tuhi Nirankar, Sant Nirankari Sewa Dal, Annual Nirankari Sant Samagam, Sant Nirankari Sarovar, Sant Nirankari Public School and Nirankari International Samagam etc. All the 17 registered trademarks bear the words "Nirankar" or "Nirankari". Thus, the dominant feature of the above wordmarks is "Nirankari" and the plaintiff is the prior user of these trademarks. It has further been argued that defendant no. 1 "Nirankari Dham" was registered as a trust in 2018 and defendant no. 2, who was earlier associated with the plaintiff society, has adopted the expression "Nirankari" only with the intention to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. It was further argued that plaintiff has acquired distinctiveness and absolute proprietary rights by virtue of long, extensive and uninterrupted use of the word "Nirankari/Nirankar". Ld. Sr. Advocate for the plaintiff argued that defendant no. 2 left the plaintiff society in or around 2016 and approximately after two years, he executed trust deed establishing defendant no. 1. It was argued that defendants have failed to provide any explanation why the wordmark "Nirankari" is being used by them.

SISODIA 2025.09.19 14:58:43 +0530 CS DJ 5992/18 Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.) Vs. Nirankari Dham & Ors Page No.30 by 47 Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2002) 2 SCC 147; TV Venugopal Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. (2011) 4 SCC 85; Delhi Public School Society Vs. DPS Trust 2012 SCC Online Del 6234 and British School Society Vs. British International School 2021 SCC Online Delhi 5210 to argue that the generic words which have been in existence for long cannot be undermined by unauthorized use by their present or erstwhile follower on the pretext of such words being generic. It was argued that the use of the expression "Nirankari Dham" by the defendants is use of an identical trademark which is deceptively similar to the trademarks of the plaintiff in relation to the activities, partly similar to those of plaintiff which includes preaching and practicing a particular belief system without being permitted or authorized to do so, amounts to infringement of registered trademarks of the plaintiff which contain the wordmark "Nirankari". He further argued that defendants have also caused invasion of the rights of plaintiff in the domain names www.nirankari.org and www.nirankari.com.

3, who were followers of the plaintiff organization, also could not prove misrepresentation or bad faith adoption.

35. In rebuttal, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the judgments relied upon by the defendant are not applicable to the facts of the present case in as much as the plaintiff has been using the word "Nirankari" for last more than 70 years and has a large number of followers and devotees from semi urban/rural areas. The public at large associates the plaintiff with the dominant feature of its wordmark i.e. "Nirankari." The defendants have not challenged the plaintiff's wordmark before the Registrar. The judgment of Division Bench in South India Beverages ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.09.19 SISODIA 14:59:21 +0530 CS DJ 5992/18 Sant Nirankari Mandal (Regd.) Vs. Nirankari Dham & Ors Page No.34 by 47 (supra) has engrafted an exception to the 'anti-dissection rule' contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, where the common part of the rival marks can be treated as a dominant part. The plaintiff has a family of marks, all of which use the word "Nirankari/Nirankar" which has indeed become a source identifier of the marks of the plaintiff. Not only this, the word "Nirankari" has acquired distinctiveness and the defendants have failed to provide any explanation for using the wordmark "Nirankari." It was also argued that in all the judgments relied upon by the defendants, orders were passed at an interim stage and the same cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as they were based on prima facie observations of the Hon'ble High Court.