Facts

This case involves a company called SML Limited, which used to be known as Sulphur Mills Limited, claiming that another company, Safex Chemicals (India) Ltd, was wrongly using a trade name very similar to its own. SML Limited makes products like fertilizers and plant nutrients, and it registered the name “TRACKON” for these items in 2019 after applying in 2018. It also registered “TRACKON GOLD” in 2021. The company changed its name to SML Limited in 2022 and updated the registrations to reflect this change.

SML Limited says it started using “TRACKON” in 2018 and has been selling products under this name ever since, building up sales and reputation over the years. In late 2024, SML Limited discovered that Safex Chemicals had applied to register “TRACKON” for pesticides and insecticides, claiming they started using it in 2020. SML Limited opposed that registration immediately. When they checked the market again in early 2025, they found Safex Chemicals selling an insecticide under the name “TRACKON.”

SML Limited bought a sample of the product in April 2025 from a shop in Haryana. They noticed the product was not listed on Safex Chemicals’ own website but was present on third-party sites like IndiaMart. SML Limited pointed out that this was not the first time they had issues with Safex Chemicals — there was an earlier case about the name “PEARL,” where Safex Chemicals agreed to stop using that name. SML Limited believes Safex Chemicals is a repeat offender, having faced court orders in other matters as well.

Safex Chemicals, on the other hand, says it has been around since 1991 and sells over 120 agrochemical products. It claims it adopted “TRACKON” in 2020 after checking the market and has used it honestly since then. Safex Chemicals argues its products differ from SML Limited’s — they are pesticides, not fertilizers — and that differences in packaging, colors, and prices mean consumers would not be confused. Safex Chemicals also questioned SML Limited’s older invoices, suggesting they looked fake because they showed the new company name on documents from before the name change.

SML Limited explained that this happened because their computer system updates old invoices with the new template when reprinted, and they produced supporting proof such as GST numbers and ledgers. Safex Chemicals also said SML Limited knew about them in 2024 but delayed taking action, and that SML Limited previously told the trademark office that a similar name, “TRICON,” was not confusing, so they should not complain now.

Procedural Details

The case began when SML Limited filed a suit in the Bombay High Court in April 2025, seeking an injunction to stop Safex Chemicals from using “TRACKON.” The suit was heard in the court’s commercial division for intellectual property matters. Along with the main suit, SML Limited filed an interim application requesting a temporary stop order pending final determination.

The court heard arguments from both parties by video conference. Lawyers for SML Limited produced registration documents, sales records, and proof of purchase of the rival product. Safex Chemicals filed a reply in May 2025, denying the allegations and providing its own sales figures from 2022 onward. Both sides exchanged additional pleadings, including rejoinders. The judge reserved decision on August 12, 2025, after hearing submissions, and delivered the final order on September 22, 2025. No trial with witnesses has occurred yet; this decision only concerns temporary relief.

Dispute

The central dispute is whether Safex Chemicals is infringing SML Limited’s rights by using “TRACKON” for pesticides when SML Limited already holds registrations for that name in respect of fertilizers. SML Limited contends this is infringement because the names are identical and, although the goods fall in different classes (fertilizers in Class 1 and pesticides in Class 5), they are related enough in the agricultural context that consumers — particularly farmers — might believe the products come from the same source. This could cause confusion in shops where farmers buy both types of products.

SML Limited also alleges that Safex Chemicals is attempting to pass off its goods as those of SML Limited to benefit from SML Limited’s reputation. Safex Chemicals responds that the goods are entirely different — one is a nutrient, the other a pesticide — and highlights distinctions in packaging, color, and price to show there is no likelihood of confusion. It accuses SML Limited of suppressing facts, pointing to prior statements about “TRICON,” and of delaying suit. Safex Chemicals insists it adopted the name honestly and has used it for years without complaints.

The court’s task at this stage was to decide whether SML Limited had established sufficient prima facie case and balance of convenience to justify a temporary injunction preventing Safex Chemicals from using the name “TRACKON.”

Detailed Reasoning

The judge began by noting that the marks “TRACKON” and “TRACKON GOLD” used by SML Limited are identical to the mark Safex Chemicals is using; they look, sound, and convey the same impression. SML Limited registered the mark first (2019 and 2021), while Safex Chemicals applied later in 2023 and claimed use from 2020. The governing statute is the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 29 provides that a registered mark is infringed when another person uses the same or deceptively similar mark for similar or allied goods such that the public is likely to be confused or to associate the goods with the registered owner.

The judge emphasized that classification of goods into classes (e.g., Class 1 vs Class 5) is an administrative convenience and not determinative. What matters is whether the goods are allied or cognate in trade. The court applied precedent including the Supreme Court’s test in Corn Products Refining Co. vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142, which explains cognate goods as those having a trade connection (e.g., glucose and biscuits as both food-related). The judge also relied on Allied Auto Accessories Ltd. vs. Allied Motors Pvt. Ltd., 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 1138, which treats classification lists as guides rather than definitive rules, and on the English test in British Sugar Plc vs. James Robertson & Sons Ltd., [1996] R.P.C. 281, which considers the nature and uses of the goods, the consumers, the trade channels, store placement, and competition between the products.

The court also referenced Indchemie Health Specialities (P) Ltd vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 10127, which states that nature, uses, and trade channels need not match exactly but should be examined together. Applying these principles, the judge found fertilizers and pesticides to be complementary agrochemical products: one supplies nutrients while the other controls pests. Farmers typically purchase both types from the same retailers, so there is overlap in users and trade channels. Therefore, the goods are related enough to attract protection under Section 29(2).

On the question of confusion, the judge observed that the marks are identical and that SML Limited has disclosed sales exceeding Rs. 6 crore from 2018–2025, creating a reputation such that ordinary farmers might associate Safex Chemicals’ product with SML Limited. This satisfies the “likelihood of association” under the Act. The judge cited Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. vs. Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727, for the proposition that infringement is determined by the mark itself and not merely by packaging, and that an injunction should follow where infringement is established.

Regarding Safex Chemicals’ attack on SML Limited’s invoices (alleging fabricated documents showing the new name on earlier dates), SML Limited explained the reprint/template issue caused by their software and produced corroborative material such as GST numbers and ledgers. The judge considered that explanation adequate at this stage, reserving fuller scrutiny for trial.

On prior use under Section 34, Safex Chemicals’ claimed start in 2020 is later than SML Limited’s use from 2018 and registration in 2019, so the prior-use defense fails on the present record. Concerning allegations of suppression, SML Limited’s prior statement about “TRICON” was treated as materially different from “TRACKON,” and therefore not inconsistent. On delay, the judge applied Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. vs. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, noting that delay alone does not bar interim relief, particularly where fraudulent conduct may be involved. Here, SML Limited acted after discovering the product in 2025 and there was no evidence of acquiescence.

The judge also observed that honest concurrent use under Section 12 pertains to registration proceedings and is not an automatic defense in a court infringement action; in any event, the uses were not truly concurrent because SML Limited was earlier. The court reviewed authorities on conduct and fabricated documents but found those inapplicable on the present facts. Tests for granting interim injunctions from Wander Ltd vs. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 were applied, and comparisons with cases involving different goods were considered but distinguished on facts.

On passing off, the judge noted that passing off requires goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Here, the judge found packaging differences significant; they reduce the likelihood of consumers being misled, and thus a passing off claim was not established for interim relief even though infringement was.

Decision

The court granted a temporary injunction restraining Safex Chemicals from using the mark “TRACKON” on its products on the ground of infringement of SML Limited’s registered mark. The court did not grant an injunction for passing off, finding that differences in packaging make misrepresentation unlikely. The suit will proceed to full trial on the substantive issues.

Case Information

• Case Title: SML Limited Vs. Safex Chemicals (India) Ltd
• Order Date: September 22, 2025
• Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 432 of 2025
• Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:16030
• Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
• Name of Hon’ble Judge: Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi