Introduction
The case of Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Private Limited & Anr. exemplifies a classic trademark battle in the competitive kitchen and home appliances sector, where visual, phonetic, and structural similarities in brand names and logos can lead to consumer confusion and dilution of established goodwill. Sunflame, a well-entrenched brand with over four decades of market presence, sought to restrain the defendants from using the mark ‘Sunflare’ (with a flame device), alleging infringement and passing off.
The dispute underscores the protection afforded to prior registered users against later-adopted deceptively similar marks, particularly when the rival mark appears designed to capitalize on the plaintiff’s reputation in household consumer goods. The interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC focused on preventing irreparable harm pending trial, balancing the equities in favor of preserving established goodwill.
Factual Background
Sunflame Enterprises traces its origins to 1980 when its predecessor, a partnership firm M/s Sunflame Industries, commenced manufacturing and marketing gas stoves under the ‘Sunflame’ mark. The company was formally incorporated in 1984 as Sunflame Appliances Marketing Pvt. Ltd., renamed Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in 1995.
Over more than four decades, Sunflame has evolved into a leading manufacturer and distributor of a diverse range of kitchen and home appliances, including:
- Gas stoves
- Burners
- Chimneys
- Cooktops
- Mixers
- Grinders
- Water heaters
- Induction cookers
- Pressure cookers
- Cookware
- Room heaters
The brand emphasizes innovation, research and development, quality control, and customer satisfaction through an extensive dealer and service network across India.
Distinctiveness Of The ‘Sunflame’ Mark
The ‘Sunflame’ mark, often stylized with a flame device integrated into the lettering (particularly in the ‘o’), has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through continuous, extensive, and uninterrupted use since 1980.
Trademark Registrations
Sunflame holds multiple trademark registrations across various classes, including:
| Class | Description |
|---|---|
| Class 11 | Heating and cooking apparatus |
| Class 21 | Household utensils |
| Class 9 | Electrical appliances |
| Class 7 | Machines |
| Class 17 | Insulating materials |
Key registrations date back to 1980, with use claimed from as early as 2000 in some cases. The plaintiff’s substantial investments in quality, advertising, and distribution have resulted in steady growth in sales turnover, reflecting immense goodwill and reputation synonymous with reliable, high-performance appliances.
Defendants And Allegations
The defendants, Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and another entity, adopted the mark ‘Sunflare’ (depicted as ‘Sunflare’ with a flame-like device), which the plaintiff alleged was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar.
Defendant No. 2 filed trademark applications in 2022 for ‘Sunflare’ in the following classes:
- Class 21
- Class 9
The plaintiff claimed the adoption was dishonest, aimed at riding on Sunflame’s reputation, and likely to cause confusion among average consumers purchasing impulse-driven household appliances.
Procedural Background
The suit was instituted in 2024 as CS(COMM) 216/2024, seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for trademark infringement and passing off. Along with the plaint, I.A. No. 5557/2024 was filed for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the defendants from using ‘Sunflare’ or any deceptively similar mark.
Reasoning and Decision of Court
The court comprehensively examined the plaintiff’s long-standing prior use since 1980, multiple registrations, extensive sales, and established goodwill, which conferred distinctiveness on the ‘Sunflame’ mark despite its suggestive elements.
The defendants’ mark ‘Sunflare’ was found to be phonetically similar (sharing the ‘Sunfla’ prefix), visually akin due to the flame device, and structurally deceptive, with the dominant feature being the common ‘Sunfl’ element combined with flame imagery evocative of fire and cooking.
The court applied the dominant feature test, holding that consumers of average intelligence would likely associate ‘Sunflare’ with ‘Sunflame’ even without side-by-side comparison, leading to initial confusion or wonder about affiliation.
The adoption was deemed prima facie dishonest, as the defendants failed to explain how they arrived at such a strikingly similar mark, suggesting an intent to ride on the plaintiff’s reputation.
- The mark was not descriptive or generic.
- It served as a source identifier for kitchen appliances.
- A strong prima facie case of infringement was established due to registered rights in relevant classes.
- A strong prima facie case of passing off was established due to substantial goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage.
The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as continued use by defendants would erode goodwill and cause irreparable injury, whereas restraint would not unduly prejudice defendants who could adopt alternative branding.
Accordingly, interim injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from using ‘Sunflare’ or any deceptively similar mark pending final disposal of the suit.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
This decision reaffirms the application of the dominant feature test in assessing deceptive similarity under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the essential or striking elements (here, ‘Sunfl’ prefix and flame motif) prevail over minor differences.
It clarifies that suggestive marks with acquired distinctiveness through long use and registration enjoy robust protection against phonetically and visually similar later marks, even if the rival mark incorporates a device.
Courts prioritize evidence of prior adoption, goodwill, and dishonest intent in interim relief, emphasizing that equity demands restraint to prevent consumer confusion and unjust enrichment in FMCG-like appliance markets where purchases are brand-driven.
Honest concurrent use defenses fail when adoption appears calculated to exploit reputation.
Case Details
| Case Title | Sunflame Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 31.01.2026 |
| Case Number | CS(COMM) 216/2024 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:783 |
| Name of Court | :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} |
| Name of Hon’ble Judge | Mr. Justice Tejas Karia |
