[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Neeraj Jewellery vs Mr. Chandan Sadija on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:13878-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
FAM No.33 of 2025
The date when The date when the The date when the judgment
the judgment is judgment is is uploaded on the website
reserved pronounced Operative Full
21.01.2026 24.03.2026 -- 24.03.2026
1 - Neeraj Jewellery Through Its Proprietor Neeraj Gupta, Aged About
48 Years, S/o Shri Suresh Chandra Gupta, Shop At Shop No.14,
Novelty Market, Banjari Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Mr. Nishant Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Gupta, Aged About 42 Years
Shop At Shop No.14, Novelty Market, Banjari Road, Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
Appellant (s)
versus
1 - Mr. Chandan Sadija C/o Gurudev Jewellery, Shop At 2/12, Banjara
Road, In-Front Of Indar Store, Ravi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.)
2 - Mr. Vikas Nahlani, C/o Palak Payal, Shop At- R.K. Boot House Line,
In Front of Nanda Garrage, Sarju Bagicha, Road Telipara, Bilaspur,
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
Respondent(s)
Digitally For Appellants : Mr. Anup Majumdar and Mr. Vibhor Govardhan,
signed Advocates
by R
NIRALA For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
CAV Judgment
Per Rajani Dubey J.
1. Heard on admission on application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of
CPC as well as appeal on merits.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs
against the order dated 10.09.2025 (Annexure-A/1) passed by
the learned Commercial Court, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the
application of the appellants/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and
2 of CPC has been rejected. (The parties herein shall be referred
as per their nomenclature before the learned Trial Court).
3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the plaintiffs, are that the
plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act,
1999 before the learned Commercial Court. As per plaintiffs, the
plaintiff no.1 firm in 2016 had honestly, legitimately,
independently and bonafidely conceived and adopted the mark
"NEERAJ", inter alia, for using the same in relation to the goods
falling under clause 14. The appellant No.01 is a proprietorship
firm namely Neeraj Jewellery represented through its proprietor
and appellant No.02 is the registered owner of the trademark
NEERAJ and is brother of proprietor firm Neeraj Jewellery
namely Neeraj Gupta. As per the plaintiffs, the plaintiff firm is a
market leader in marketing the aforesaid goods and services and
has a broad business presence in India. The plaintiffs' registered
mark is eligible to be classified as a "well-known" trademark
under Section 2(1) (gz) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The
plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants are dishonestly using
identical and deceptively similar mark like his trademark while
selling the jewellery. The adoption of impugned trademark by the
defendants is done deliberately, malafidely, fraudulently and with
ulterior motives to imitate/trade upon the plaintiffs' goodwill and
reputation, upon the plaintiffs objected and even sent notice to
the defendants, but they continued to do the same. Ultimately
civil suit was filed before the learned Trial Court, which is pending
consideration, in which the plaintiffs also filed application under
Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for temporary injunction but the
same has been rejected vide impugned order. Hence the present
appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the the
impugned order dated 10/09/2025 passed by the Learned Commercial
Court is erroneous and contrary to facts and circumstances of the
case. The Learned Commercial Court has not appreciated as the
prima facie case of the appellants shows that the trade mark of
the appellants is used by the respondents because of which the
balance of convenience is in the favour of the appellants also the
appellants have suffered irreparable loss due to the actions of the
respondents. The learned Commercial Court wrongfully placed
over reliance upon section 21 (g) (2) and section 35 of the Act
1999 for denying the relief to the appellants. The said provisions
curtails the right of registered trademark user only to the extent of
usage by predecessor in business of other persons bonafidely. In
this case the registered trademark of 'NEERAJ' in name of
plaintiffs is sufficient to establish exclusive rights to use the trade
name by the plaintiffs and it is the burden of the defendants to
establish by evidence that their predecessors in business used
the said trade mark or similar name. He further submits that
Section 28 confers exclusive rights to use the registered
trademark in relation to goods and service by the plaintiffs in the
name of NEERAJ and goods and services which are deceptively
similar in their jewellery business. Section 29 prescribes
infringement of registered trademarks by the person who is using
the registered trademark which is identical with or deceptively
similar for his own business as conducted by the defendants in
the present case. The learned Commercial Court failed to take
into consideration the rigor of Section 78 of the Act of 1999
before denying the right of temporary injunction to the plaintiffs
who are holding the registration of certification trademarks in the
name of NEERAJ for transacting in minor jewelleries. The
plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction in light of section
135 (2) (c) of the Act of 1999 and the holding of certificate of
registration of trademark NEERAJ in class 14 goods prima facie
establishes case in favour of registered user that no other person
will transact in jewelleries with trade name as NEERAJ and
deceptively similar names as NEERAJ A1 and NEERAJ 100. It is
matter of common reasoning that infringement of trademark
rights ested u/s 28, 29 and 78 of the Act of 1999 is bound to
cause irreparable injury and damage to the business of the
registered user. The element of balance of convenience also tilts
in favour of plaintiff therefore the learned commercial Court ought
to have granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellants/
plaintiffs but it has failed to do so. Therefore, the impugned order
is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters
of Laxmikant V. Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah and another,
reported in (2002) 3 SCC 65, Pernod Ricard India Private
Limited vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, reported in 2025 INSC
981, Cadila Laboratories Ltd vs Dabur Industris India Ltd,
reported in 1997 SCC Online Delhi 360 and the judgments
rendered by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Walter
Bushnell Pvt Ltd and others vs Miracle Life Science and
Another, passed in CS(OS) No.220/2013, Century Traders vs
Roshan Lal Duggar and Company, reported in AIR 1978 Delhi
250,
5. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposes the prayer
of the appellants in interim application as well as on merits and
submits that the appeal is wholly misconceived, bereft of
substance and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The
appellants have failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or
jurisdictional error in the well-reasoned order dated 10.09.2025
passed by the Learned Commercial Court. The appeal is nothing
but an attempt to reargue factual issues already examined in
detail and to invite this Court to substitute its own discretion for
that lawfully exercised by the Court below, which is impermissible
in appellate jurisdiction. The impugned order has been passed
after a comprehensive evaluation of pleadings, documents, and
settled principles governing the grant of temporary injunction
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Commercial Court has correctly appreciated that interim
relief is an equitable and discretionary remedy, and the burden to
establish entitlement thereto squarely lies upon the plaintiffs. The
appellants have failed to discharge this burden on every material
parameter. It is submitted that the appellants' case is founded
primarily upon an alleged exclusivity over the word "NEERAJ"
and a purported infringement through the marks "NEERAJ A1"
and "NEERAJ 100" However, the Learned Commercial Court has
rightly recorded that the said marks are admittedly unregistered
and pending consideration before the Trademark Registry. Mere
filing of trademark applications does not confer any enforceable
statutory right under Sections 28 or 29 of the Trade Marks Act,
1999. In the absence of registration, the appellants' claim of
statutory infringement is illusory and legally unsustainable. It is
pertinent to note that equally untenable is the appellants' claim to
monopoly over the word "NEERAJ", which is a common personal
name widely used across India. The Commercial Court has
correctly observed that a common name cannot, by default,
acquire exclusivity unless the claimant demonstrates by cogent
and independent evidence that such name has acquired a
secondary meaning exclusively associated with its business. No
such material has been produced. The appellants have failed to
place on record any consumer surveys, market recognition
studies, trade data or industry reports to substantiate their
assertion of distinctiveness or brand dominance. On the contrary,
the financial disclosures placed by the appellants themselves,
including modest net profits, belie their tall claims of pan-India
presence or market leadership. It is respectfully submitted that
the Learned Commercial Court has further and correctly applied
Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which statutorily
protects the bona fide use of one's own name or place of
business. The protection under Section 35 is absolute in nature
and extends to both infringement and passing off actions. Even a
registered trademark proprietor cannot interfere with such bona
fide use unless exceptional circumstances of overwhelming
distinctiveness and proven malafide intent are established. The
appellants have failed to satisfy either of these requirements. The
findings of the Commercial Court are firmly supported by
authoritative judicial precedents and do not warrant interference.
The conduct of the appellants also disentitles them from any
equitable relief. Despite being fully aware that the alleged
manufacture and first use of the impugned marks is attributable
to one Mr. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, the appellants deliberately
chose not to implead him as a party. This omission is not
accidental but strategic, as the appellants had already served
him with a legal notice dated 01.05.2023 and acknowledged his
prior applications and prior user claims. Selective litigation of this
nature, coupled with suppression of material facts, strikes at the
root of the appellants' bona fides and justifies denial of
discretionary relief. It is further evident that the respondents are
independent traders and retailers engaged in legitimate
business-to-business transactions. There exists no relationship of
agency, franchise, license or partnership between the
respondents and the alleged manufacturer. The appellants have
also relied upon an alleged admission by Respondent No. 1
regarding cessation of dealings under the mark "NEERAJ", but
such assertion, even if accepted, does not absolve the appellants
of their obligation to establish the essential ingredients required
for grant of injunction. An interim injunction cannot be granted
merely on conjecture or apprehension. Therefore, the appeal as
well as the application are liable to be dismissed. Reliance has
been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matters of Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt Ltd vs Kirat
Vinodbhai Jadvani, reported in 2022 SCC Online Del 3370
and Corn Products Refining Co. vs Shangrila Food Products
Ltd, reported in AIR 1960 SC 142.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the
plaintiffs filed suit under Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, 1999
before the learned Commercial Court and they also filed
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC in this regard that
defendants may be restrained from using trademark 'NEERAJ' as
shown to be owned by the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Court vide
impugned order dismissed the application of the plaintiffs on this
ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish essential
ingredients for temporary injunction such as prima facie case,
balance of convenience and thereafter loss in their favour.
8. As per suit filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 firm in the year
2016 honestly, legitimately, independently and bonafidely
conceived and adopted the mark "NEERAJ", inter alia for using
the same in relation to the goods falling under clause 14. The
plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants are dishonestly using
identical and deceptively similar mark like their trademark while
selling the jewellery. The adoption of impugned trademark by the
defendants is done deliberately, malafidely, fraudulently and with
ulterior motives to imitate/trade upon the plaintiffs' goodwill and
reputation, upon the plaintiffs objected and even sent legal notice
to the defendants, but they continued to do the same, which
resulted into filing of civil suit before the learned Commercial
Court and the plaintiffs also filed application under Order 39 Rule
1 & 2 of CPC.
9. The learned Trial Court minutely appreciated the arguments of
the both the parties and adduced the documents filed by the
parties and held in para 28 as under:-
"28. Clearly, the plaintiffs have failed to establish
prima facie case in their favour. Admittedly, the marks
"NEERAJ A1" and "NEERAJ 100" are pending
consideration before the Trademark registry. In fact,
as per Trademark search report dated 04/05/2025
filed by plaintiffs themselves, Mr. Pawan Kumar
Agrawal appears to have applied for registration of
marks "Neeraj A1" and "Neeraj 100" vide applications
dated 11/04/2023, whereas the plaintiffs appear to
have applied for registration of their trademark
"NEERAJ A1" and "NEERAJ 100" only on 01/05/2023
and 02/05/2023 respectively. Here also, the user date
for trademark by Pawan Kumar Agrawal has been
shown to be 10/10/2018 and 18/10/2018 respectively
which are prior to the user date as shown by the
plaintiffs i.e. 02/02/2019."
The learned Trial Court also found that 'Neeraj' is
commonly used name which cannot be said to be distinctive in
itself and accordingly dismissed the application of the appellants
for temporary injunction.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vasundhra
Jewellers Pvt Ltd (supra) held in paras 23, 37, 38, 39 & 40 as
under:-
"23. The learned Single Judge found that albeit the
VASUNDHRA Trademarks were registered, however,
the appellant did not hold any registration for the
word mark "VASUNDHRA". The learned Single
Judge further held that "device mark, the essential
feature of the same is equally entitled to protection...
at the same time, it has to remembered that in
extending such protection, the party does not lay a
claim of exclusivity in a mark to which otherwise he
would have been unable to do so. The possibility of
the proprietor attempting to expand the operation of
his trade mark cannot be ignored or overlooked.
37. First, that on a plain comparison of the
VASUNDHRA Trademarks with the device mark "
/VASUNDHRA FASHION", it is apparent that the
trademarks are not similar. Even if it is accepted that
the word 'Vasundhra' is a dominant part of the
VASUNDHRA Trademarks, the device label "
/VASUNDHRA FASHION" cannot be accepted to be
deceptively similar merely because it includes the
word 'Vasundhra'. The dominant part of the said
trademark is a leaf, which is not common to the
competing marks.
38. Second, the word 'Vasundhra' is a generic word
and it is brought on record that there are several
registered trademarks, which include the word
'Vasundhra'. Further, 'Vasundhra' in Hindi means the
earth or the bearer of all. Thus, intrinsically, the word
'Vasundhra' would be a weak trademark. Although it
is possible for a proprietor to claim exclusive right in
respect of the word 'Vasundhra', however, for that, it
would be necessary to establish on account of
extensive use, the said common word has been
identified exclusively with the business of the
proprietor and no other. Prima facie, it is difficult to
accept that the appellant meets the said threshold.
The learned Single Judge had noted that the
appellant has a single store. Although the appellant's
turnover is about ₹79 crores, it pertains to high value
items and therefore, does not necessarily establish
the reputation associated with the VASUNDHRA
Trademarks.
39. The observations in the impugned judgment that "
'VASUNDHRA' is a common name in India and an
exclusive right to use the same cannot be granted to
the plaintiff" has to be read in the aforesaid context.
The learned Single Judge had found that the word
'Vasundhra' was a part of the composite marks and
the appellant did not have exclusive monopoly over
the word 'Vasundhra' merely on account of
registration of composite marks including the said
words.
40. It is also relevant to note that the learned Single
Judge had also noted that before the Registrar of
Trademarks, the appellant had sought to distinguish
other trademarks, which included the word
'Vasundhra', by claiming that the VASUNDHRA
Trademarks were required to be considered as a
whole. Thus, it is not open for the appellant now to
take a contrary stand and claim that the device mark
"VASUNDHRA FASHION/ " is deceptively similar to
the VASUNDHRA Trademarks on the ground that it
includes the word 'Vasundhra'.
11. In light of the above, in the present case also the learned Trial
Court observed that as per Trademark search report dated
04/05/2025 filed by plaintiffs themselves, Mr. Pawan Kumar
Agrawal appears to have applied for registration of marks "Neeraj
A1" and "Neeraj 100" vide applications dated 11/04/2023,
whereas the plaintiffs appear to have applied for registration of
their trademark "NEERAJ A1" and "NEERAJ 100" only on
01/05/2023 and 02/05/2023 respectively. Here also, the user date
for trademark by Pawan Kumar Agrawal has been shown to be
10/10/2018 and 18/10/2018 respectively which are prior to the
user date as shown by the plaintiffs i.e. 02/02/2019.
12. It is well settled principle of law that in order to obtain an order of
injunction, the applicant has to prove that he has made out a
prima facie a good case, balance of convenience and irreparable
loss also lies, but it is clear that the plaintiffs/appellants have
failed to prove essential ingredients required for temporary
injunction in their favour, as such the learned Trial Court has
rightly dismissed the application of the plaintiffs/appellants for
grant of temporary injunction. Thus looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the fact that the case is already
pending before the learned Trial Court for final adjudication, we
do not find any good ground to entertain the application for
temporary injunction as well as appeal on merits.
13. Accordingly, the application i.e No.1/2025 for grant of interim
relief as well as the appeal are without any merit and are liable to
be dismissed at the admission stage itself.
14. Consequently, the application (IA No.1/2025) and the appeal are
dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Nirala
