Gopika Industries Vs Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Facts Of The Case
The lawsuit was initiated by Gopika Industries, which claimed infringement of its registered trademark DYAL, used for cattle feed and registered since April 4, 1996 under Trade Mark No. 709502 in Class 31. Gopika Industries had records showing use of the DYAL mark both in English and regional languages. The defendant, Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd., is also in the business of manufacturing and selling cattle feed and holds its trademark DAYAL (Trade Mark No. 923948) registered on May 10, 2000 in Class 31. Both parties claimed to use their respective marks for similar goods and in similar languages.
Procedural Detail
Dayal Industries filed an application seeking court permission to initiate rectification proceedings against Gopika Industries’ registered trademark. In its written statement defending the application, Dayal Industries raised several pleas to challenge the validity of the DYAL mark. These included claims that Dayal Industries was the prior user of the mark DAYAL for cattle feed products since 2000, while the earliest invoice of plaintiff Gopika Industries was from 2001.
The defendant claimed further rights through its own group company Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., which used the mark DAYAL in allied products as early as 1979. The defendant also asserted that the plaintiff was misusing the goodwill of the DAYAL mark to confuse consumers and pass off its products as those of Dayal Industries. Meanwhile, the group company Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. had already filed a separate commercial suit against Gopika Industries regarding trademark issues.
Dispute
The core dispute was whether Gopika Industries’ registration of DYAL in 1996 gave it superior rights, even if contemporaneous commercial use commenced later (2001), and if Dayal Industries could challenge this registration based on alleged prior use or invalidity. The defendant argued that mere registration did not suffice to claim rights if commercial use was delayed, and invoked grounds such as prior use by their company or affiliated group companies, as well as visual and phonetic similarity of the marks DYAL and DAYAL. The plaintiff countered by relying on statutory provisions and judicial precedents that clarified the status of rights derived from statutory registration of trademarks.
Reasoning
The Court examined arguments from both sides, referring to the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially Section 34, which deals with infringement protection based on prior use, and Section 18 regarding registration based on actual or proposed use. The defendant contended, relying on Section 34, that the plaintiff was barred from claiming rights based on mere registration, if actual use began after the defendant’s usage.
However, the court referred to the precedent set in Worknest Business Centre LLP v. Worknests Through Sh Raesh Goyal [2023 SCC OnLine Del 1678]. This landmark judgment clarified that the relevant date for establishing trademark ownership and prior use is the date of registration application, not actual commercial use.
The law creates a presumption of validity and proprietary ownership for registered marks, irrespective of when commercial use begins, provided the proprietor demonstrates steps towards using the mark—which Gopika Industries did through documentary evidence and correspondence with authorities between 1996 and 1999.
The defendant’s argument about prior use through Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed by the court because its trademark application (TM No. 923948 for cattle feed) only claimed user from May 2000 onward, not from 1979. Furthermore, Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. was not selling cattle feed under the DAYAL mark, so its use in allied products (fertilizers) was held irrelevant to the present dispute.
The Court Cited Two Further Judgments:
- Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. [2018 2 SCC 112]
- Amrish Aggarwal Trading As Ms. Mahalaxmi Product v. Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine Del 3652]
Both judgments reconfirmed that the statutory presumption linked to registered marks stands unless clear, continuous prior use in the precise category of goods is established. The court found no adequate demonstration by the defendant of usage of DAYAL for cattle feed before April 4, 1996—the plaintiff’s date of registration application—which under law is regarded as the decisive cut-off for prior use.
Decision
The Hon’ble High Court rejected the defendant’s request to initiate rectification proceedings against Gopika Industries’ trademark and dismissed the plea of invalidity. The application did not raise a triable issue affecting the registered mark DYAL held by Gopika Industries for cattle feed. The court clarified that its observations did not impact separate pending petitions between the parties or Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd., which would be decided independently. The suit remains listed for further trial on connected matters.
Case Details
Case Title: Gopika Industries Vs Dayal Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Order Date: September 26, 2025
Case Number: CSCOMM 700/2017
Name Of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name Of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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.
Author
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
