Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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