ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record, pertinent is to note that the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural at Dholka, in allowing the interim injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure at Exh.7 in a Commercial Trade
Page 1 of 15
Mark Suit namely, TMCS No.1 of 2023.
2. A perusal of the judgment and order impugned indicates that the suit was filed with the assertion by the plaintiff that the plaintiff - 'Narmada Agrobase Limited' is engaged in the manufacture and marketing of cattle feed and related products under various trademarks adopting the term
"NARMADA" since 2013, including the mark "Gay Chhap Narmada Pashu Aahar" which is registered under Class 31.
3. From the findings returned in the order impugned, it is evident that the device trademark of the plaintiff is a registered mark and the registration certificate of the trademark No.4102427 has been brought on record. A perusal of the Page- '25' and '26' of the paper-book supplied by the learned counsel for the appellant, makes it evident that the registration certificate issued on 24.09.2020 is with respect to the device mark, the logo which contains the words "Gay Chhap", "Narmada" "Pashu Aahar" with a picture of cow therein. The name of the proprietor as indicated therein is M/s. Narmada Agrobase Limited, the petitioner herein.
Page 2 of 15
4. With the above, we may look to the findings returned by the trial Court in Paragraphs - 66 and 67 as under:-
"66. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factors for passing off action/infringement as to deceptive similarity, this court observes in the present case that;
(a) Plaintiff's word in trademark is "Narmada" and defendant's word in trademark is "Narbada", logo of plaintiff and defendant are picture of cow.
(b) Looking to the degree of resemblances between the marks, phonetically similar and similar in idea as mentioned here in above.
(c) The nature of goods in respect of which the plaintiff and the defendant are used cattle feed as trademarks.
(d) Similarity in the nature are found and rival trader i.e. defendant has been used deceptively similar trademark for selling its goods.
(e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods are farmers, illiterate, labourers of farm and uneducated people, and those people would not go to the deep and root about word-to-word comparison, and see the picture of cow very minutely and meticulously because the farmers and illiterate labourers of farm have no understanding about the trademark, words, device, picture and logo.
Page 3 of 15
(f) By and large mode of purchasing the good for placing orders for the goods are in cash and mostly cash payment transactions are made.
67. On perusing Sr. No.3, page No. 70 to 71, Trademark Registration Certificate of Trademark No. 4102427 of the plaintiff and looking to logo, Trademark name and device are mentioned. On perusing Sr.No. 17, page No. 94 to 111, a copy of company profile of the plaintiff and products of the plaintiff company are mentioned. Further, to restrain illegal act by defendant, plaintiff has published Public Caution Notice in the newspaper i.e. Pratahkal newspaper, Udaipur, dated 06/12/2022 (Tuesday) vide Sr. No.19, page No. 118. Likewise, on perusing Sr.No. 20, page No. 119 to 121 i.e. A copy of product leaflets and material of the plaintiff wherein it is categorically stated about the specification of the plaintiff company products as well as the plaintiff company has given caution to the customers as to imitation and deceptively similar products as well as the copy of the trademark is mentioned. On perusing Sr. No. 21, page No. 122 to 130, a copy of legal notice issued by the advocate of the plaintiff to the defendant for infringement of trademark and passing off goods of trademark "NARMADA" and in the said notice it is categorically stated that the plaintiff's class goods/ products are being sold under the plaintiff's mark since 1986 and different labels of the plaintiff's products are mentioned in the legal notice and also labels of the defendant company are mentioned. The same is well within the knowledge of the defendant and defendant is
Page 4 of 15
the well conversant with the fact of the legal notice and reply of the notice has been given by the defendant vide Sr. No.22, page No.131 to 136. On perusing vide Sr. No.24, page No.146 to 180 which are copies of sales invoices and Advertisement bills issued to the plaintiff (collectively) wherein different places of Rajasthan and Gujarat are mentioned. The customers of the products of the plaintiff's company are available in Pali, Shivganj, Udaipur, Jaipur, Kakroli and other villages and towns of Rajasthan are also mentioned. So, number of customers are purchasing the goods of the plaintiff company across the Rajasthan state, therefore it is high probability to purchase the goods of the defendant company. The number of customers are purchasing the products of the plaintiff company from Udaipur. On perusing Sr. No.25, page No.181 to 192 - copies of purchase and advertisement bills issued to the plaintiff (collectively), wherein page No.181 is the bill issued by Crowd Multiplier, and page No.182 SPICK Softech who had prepared A4 size Brochure Designing, Crowd Multiplier is the agency for Facebook Reach Ad for Narmada Agrobase and remuneration has been paid by the plaintiff company. Similarly, on perusing page No.185 to 192 are the advertisements bills of different companies and the plaintiff has made payment as to the same. On perusing Sr. No.26, page No.193, it transpires that the plaintiff company is the reputed company and it carried out its business on large scale and Sales Turnover Table from F.Y. 2013-2014 to F. Y. 2022-2023 is mentioned and the plaintiff company's sales turnover is in crores of rupees."
Page 5 of 15
5. A reading of the aforesaid paragraphs make it evident that the trial Court has made a careful comparison of the registered trademark of the plaintiff and the trademark and device being used by the defendant and noticed that in the registered trademark of the plaintiff the word used as
"NARMADA", whereas in the defendant's trademark the word is "NARBADA", whereas logo of the plaintiff and defendants both contained a picture of 'Cow'.
6. On a comparison of the trademark of the plaintiff and defendant, the device mark at the Pages- '27' and '89' of the paper-book, we do not find any error in the findings returned by the trial Court that looking to the degree of resemblance between the marks, phonetic similarity and the similarity in idea, the nature of goods in respect of which the plaintiff and defendant are using their trademarks namely cattle feed and the customers to whom they cater, it is evident that the defendant is attempting to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff.
7. It is also recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff has filed documents on record to establish its area of operation at
Page 6 of 15
different places in two States namely Rajasthan and Gujarat. A number of customers are purchasing the products of the plaintiff from Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan. The copies of purchase and advertisement bills issued to the plaintiff brought on record have been looked into.
8. From a perusal of the materials on record that the plaintiff company is a reputed company and it is carrying on its business on large scale, the Sales Turnover for the F.Y. 2013-14 to F.Y. 2022-23 brought on record, has also been considered by the trial Court to note that the Sales Turnover in these years had been in crores of rupees.
9. In the light of the above noted facts, considering the decision of this High Court in Appeal from Order No.13 of 2025 in the case of Jaipal Gaba (Proprietor) M/s.Mack Hosiery Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., it was noted therein that the defendant is attempting to obtain financial benefits the plaintiff's reputation and good will as to business carried out by the plaintiff company and as such the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill is required to be protected.
Page 7 of 15
10. This finding returned by the trial Court to arrive at the conclusion of prima-facie case made out by the plaintiff for grant of injunction could not be successfully assailed before us. Only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is a remarkable difference between the trademark of the plaintiff and that of the defendant, inasmuch as the word "NARMADA" as used by the plaintiff in the logo registered by the Trademark Registry has not been separately registered as a 'word mark'. The submission is that the plaintiff cannot claim protection of section-29 of the trademarks act, 1999 claiming itself to be the owner of the registered 'NARMADA'. No case for infringement is made out by the plaintiff by mere registration of the device mark or logo finds place at Page- '27' of the paper-book.
11. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court to substantiate the said submissions which are noted as under:-
(1) 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75725 Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Karanveer Singh Chhbra
(2) 2010 (0) AIJEL - HC 223620 Nirma Chemical Works Private Limited Vs. Niman High
Page 8 of 15
School
(3) 2001 (0) AIJEL - SC 4399 Cadila Health Care Limited Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited
(4) 2015 (0) AIJEL-SC 56731 Indian Performing Rights Society Limited Vs. Sanjay Dalia
(5) FAO (OS) (COMM) 45/2017 & CM Nos.5642/2017, 5644/2017 & 12362/2017, 37924-37925/2017, Decided on 03.11.2017 [Delhi High Court]
HSIL Limited Vs. Marvel Ceramics & Ors.
(6) CS (OS) No.2065 of 2015; Decided on 20.07.2015 [Delhi High Court]
Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors.
12. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, pertinent is to note the provisions of Section-29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 which read as under:-
29. Infringement of registered trade marks -
(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which
Page 9 of 15
is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.
(2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of-
(a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
(3) In any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2), the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
(4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person. using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which-
Page 10 of 15
(a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
(5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particu1ar, he-
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;]
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under. the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark;
(c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
(d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising.
(7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended
Page 11 of 15
to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee.
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising-
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.
(9) Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly.
13. A careful reading of Sub-section (2) of Section-29 shows that a registered proprietor of a registered trademark can claim protection under Section-29 in the circumstances where a person uses a mark in the course of his trade, which;- (i) is identical with the registered trademark in relation to similar goods or services covered by such registered trademark; or
(ii) is similar to the registered trademark and the identity or
Page 12 of 15
similarity of the goods or services covered by such mark is identical or similar to the registered trademark; or (iii) is identical with the registered trademark and the goods or services covered by such mark is identical to the goods or services covered by the registered trademark; so as to cause or likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, i.e. to the minds of the customer that such mark is likely to have an association with the registered trademark. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 further provides that in a case falling under clause
(c) of Sub-section (2), the Court shall draw a presumption that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
14. Taking note of the aforesaid provisions, pertinent is to record that from a bare perusal of the registered trademark (device mark of the plaintiff) and the impugned device mark being used by the defendant in respect to similar trade, namely for sale of cattle feed, it is evident that there is a similarity of the logo used by the defendant with that of the registered logo/ device mark of the plaintiff. Mere fact that one letter in the word used in the registered device mark of the plaintiff is different from the impugned trademark being used by the defendant, i.e. that in place of "M" alphabet "B"
Page 13 of 15
has been used to make "NARMADA" as "NARBADA", it cannot be said that there is any distinction between the registered trademark of the plaintiff and the mark used by the defendant for its goods and services.
15. It cannot be successfully argued that since the word
"NARMADA" is not registered as a 'word mark' separately, the plaintiff cannot claim infringement of the device mark, inasmuch as, the plaintiff has come out with the clear case that the impugned trademark of the defendant is a device mark which has similarity with that of the registered trademark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff and defendant being engaged in the same business, i.e. sale of cattle feed, in all likelihood use of impugned device mark by the defendant will create confusion in the minds of the customers, who are generally farmers, that the goods and services of the defendant are the same to the goods and services of the plaintiff..
16. Considering the above, having carefully considered noted the findings returned by the trial Court, we do not find any substance in the challenge made before us. The further
Page 14 of 15
opinion drawn by the trial Court on other two ingredients of grant of interim injunction, namely balance of convenience and irrepairable of loss or injury do not require any interference.
17. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed, accordingly. However, it is clarified that the dismissal of the present appeal will not come in the way of the defendant in making out its case on the merits of the suit and the trial Court would be required to deal with the evidence independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above.
Consequently, the Civil Application for Stay would not survive and the same is disposed of, accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
A. B. VAGHELA
Page 15 of 15