Abandoning Arbitration Proceedings Bars Fresh Section 11 Application On Same Cause Of Action: Supreme Court Department Must Lead Evidence, Examine Witnesses To Prove Charges Unless Employee Clearly Admits Guilt: Supreme Court Order IX Rule 13 And Section 96 CPC Have Distinct Scopes; Minor Unrepresented In Original Suit Can Seek Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree: Supreme Court Minor Heir Cannot Be Expected To Respond To Public Notice Independently: Supreme Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Succession Certificate Supreme Court Restores Acquittal In POCSO Case, Holds DNA Evidence Not Infallible If Blood Sample Collection Is Disputed Bar Under Section 197 CrPC Applies At Stage Of Cognizance; Subsequent Notification Cannot Invalidate Valid Proceedings: Supreme Court State Cannot Apply Harsher Remission Policy Retrospectively To Deny Premature Release: Supreme Court Superficial Bail Orders In Dowry Death Cases Weaken Public Faith In Judiciary: Supreme Court Cancels Husband's Bail Non-Deposit of Balance Amount During Suit Doesn't Prove Lack Of Readiness: Bombay High Court Grants Specific Performance Of 1978 Oral Agreement Teacher Appointed In 'Pass' Graduate Category Entitled To Higher Pay Scale Upon Acquiring Master's Degree During Service: Calcutta High Court Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Under Section 144 BNSS Must Be Challenged Before Family Court First, Direct Revision Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Occupant Cannot Be Denied Electricity Merely Because Decree-Holder Demands Disconnection Pending Eviction: Andhra Pradesh High Court Anticipatory Bail In PMLA Cannot Be Granted If Accused Obstructs Probe & Gives False Answers Even If Beneficiary Of Section 45 Proviso: Delhi High Court Tender Condition Disqualifying Bidders For Past Bridge Collapses Does Not Amount To Blacklisting: Gauhati High Court Mere Unauthorized Entry On Government Land Does Not Constitute Criminal Trespass Without Intent To Annoy: Himachal Pradesh High Court Mere Buildings Without Life-Saving Machinery Don't Fulfil Article 21 Mandate: Jharkhand HC Orders State-Wide Functional Burn Wards Within 120 Days Unestablished Claim Of Co-Heirship Does Not Mandate Reference To Civil Court For Apportionment Of NHAI Compensation: J&K High Court Accused Cannot Defer Cross-Examination By Merely Claiming Defence Strategy Will Be Disclosed: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allegations Confined To Negligence, Not Criminal Intent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Ex-SGPC Secretary In Missing 'Saroops' Case True Owner Cannot Unlawfully Enter Tenanted Premises Under Guise Of Ownership To Commit Offence: Kerala High Court Upholds Landlord's Conviction RTO Officials Cannot Seize Vehicles Without Specific Statutory Authority; Actions Pending Writ Proceeding Highly Improper: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Flags West Bengal Incidents, Orders Central Forces to Shield Judges on Ground Duty

Delhi High Court Delivers Judgment on Trademark Infringement Case: Vasundhra Jewellers vs. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled on a trademark infringement case between Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. And Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP. The judgment, delivered on 19th July 2023 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, sheds light on the application filed by the plaintiff seeking an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The case revolved around the usage of the marks “VASUNDHRA” and “VASUNDHARA” in the field of jewellery. Vasundhra Jewellers claimed to be the prior user and adopter of the mark “VASUNDHRA,” alleging that Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP was using the identical mark, causing confusion in the market.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, Justice Amit Bansal provided his analysis and findings. He observed that both Vasundhra Jewellers and Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP were registered proprietors of the marks in Class 14, related to jewellery products. Based on Section 28(3) and Section 30(2)(e) of the Trademarks Act, the court concluded that an action for infringement would not be maintainable, as both parties were registered proprietors of the identical mark.

However, the court emphasized that the case could be considered in the context of passing off. Justice Bansal highlighted that Ms. Vasundhara Mantri, one of the designated partners of Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, had been using her own name “VASUNDHARA” in the jewellery business since 2001. It was further noted that she had obtained registrations and copyright for the mark and had gained reputation and goodwill in the market.

Moreover, the court referred to Section 35 of the Trademarks Act, which allows bona fide use of a person’s own name in business. Considering the facts presented, Justice Bansal opined that Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, being an extension of Ms. Vasundhara Mantri, was entitled to the benefit of the defense under Section 35. The court emphasized that the issue of prior user would be determined in the trial.

Furthermore, the court addressed the plaintiff’s reliance on a previous judgment in their own case, wherein it was held that the mark “VASUNDHRA” was a common/generic name. The court noted that the judgment was in the context of different goods and did not deal with the rights of a third party using the word “VASUNDHARA” in the jewellery business. The Supreme Court had clarified this aspect in a subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the plaintiff.

Considering all these factors, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not established the exclusivity of the mark “VASUNDHRA” and that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks used by the plaintiff and the defendant. It was determined that the plaintiff could not take a contrary stand to its previous assertion and claim that the mark of the defendant was deceptively similar.

This judgment has significant implications for trademark infringement cases involving identical marks in the same class. It clarifies the application of Section 35 of the Trademarks Act and underscores the importance of establishing exclusivity and reputation in order to succeed in a passing off claim.

Speaking on the ruling, Mr. Sagar Chandra, advocate for Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., said, “While we respect the court’s decision, we believe that the distinctiveness and extensive use of the mark ‘VASUNDHRA’ should have been given more weight. We will evaluate the possibility of filing an appeal based on the specific grounds of the judgment.”

On the other hand, Mr. Suvashish Sen Gupta, advocate for Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, expressed satisfaction with the judgment, stating, “The court has recognized the long-standing usage and reputation associated with the mark ‘VASUNDHARA.’ We are pleased that our client’s rights have been upheld, and we hope this judgment sets a precedent for similar cases.”

Date of Decision: 19th July, 2023

VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.  vs VASUNDHARA FASHION  JEWELERY LLP & ANR.

Latest Legal News