Anugya Gupta v/s. I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. – Trademark Dispute
Fact of the Case
This case revolves around a trademark dispute between Anugya Gupta and another party acting against I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd., represented by Director Arpit Seth. The core business of the plaintiff is providing career and employment-related services in India, with a focus on competitive examination preparation. The plaintiff had started an online service under the name “Sarkari Result” in 2009, and over time built a web portal, mobile apps, and related services using this mark. The mark became widely recognized and used by millions across India. The plaintiff asserted its right over the trademark “Sarkari Result,” citing registration records, municipal licenses, domain registration details, Google analytics, and recognitions by various government and private entities.
Procedural Details
The dispute arose when, during a trademark registry search on 12.01.2025, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants attempted to register a similar trademark, allegedly misusing the plaintiff’s website and brand. When confronted, the defendant sent a cease and desist notice to the plaintiff. This led the plaintiff to seek an injunction from the Commercial Court in Varanasi, dispensing with mandatory pre-institution mediation requirements on grounds of urgency. The Commercial Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction, stopping the defendants from using any mark similar or identical to “Sarkari Result” and directing removal from all public platforms controlled by them.
The defendants objected, challenging both the urgency and the merits of the injunction, arguing prior domain use and knowledge by the plaintiff. The trial court, however, found evidentiary support in favor of the plaintiff’s claims and granted relief. Aggrieved, the defendants appealed the order in the Allahabad High Court.
Nature of Dispute
The main contention is over the trademark and domain name “Sarkari Result.” The plaintiff claims to be the prior adopter and continuous user of the mark since 2009, whereas the defendants argue prior use of a similar name and domain from 2012, and raise issues of knowledge, acquiescence, and suppression of material facts. The defendants also question procedural compliance, especially exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Detailed Reasoning
The Court examined extensive documentary evidence and rival submissions. The plaintiff brought forth domain registration documents, municipal corporation licenses from 2011, continuous service history, and widespread usage on social platforms, establishing long-term use and public association with “Sarkari Result.” Financial records certified by a Chartered Accountant and Google analytics demonstrated both substantial investment and user engagement.
The defendants countered these with claims of domain registration from 2012 and cited orders from previous cases before the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, where they had received some relief against other third parties. However, invoices or primary ownership records for the disputed period were lacking. Defendants further argued that certain email communications between parties (from 2016 and 2023) signaled early knowledge and therefore acquiescence on the plaintiff’s part.
The Court, relying on judgments like Ramdev Food Products P Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Pater (SCC pp. 769-770, paras 103-106) and Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines P Ltd. explained that acquiescence requires active encouragement or express assent—mere silence or delay is insufficient for a defendant to claim continued use.
The Commercial Court had also relied upon the principle from Midas Hygiene Industries P Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004 3 SCC 90), which states that in cases of infringement of trademark or copyright, injunction normally follows, and delay does not by itself defeat relief. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s continuous public use, widespread market recognition, and documentary evidence of early inception outweighed the defendants’ claims. The principle that a mere registration does not confer indefeasible rights in trademark disputes (see N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. AIR 1995 Del 300) was also considered.
Decision
The Allahabad High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s decision to grant temporary injunction preserving the plaintiff’s rights in “Sarkari Result.” It was noted that the injunction was justified given the plaintiff’s prior continuous use, substantial investment, market reputation, and absence of valid counter-evidence from defendants. The Court repeated that interim relief rests on showing a prima facie case, balance of convenience in plaintiff’s favor, and risk of irreparable harm to goodwill if the injunction is refused. Procedural objections regarding mediation were not persuasive given the urgent nature and previous conduct of both sides. The appeal and connected petitions were dismissed.
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.
Case Details
- Case Title: Anugya Gupta And Another Vs. I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd.
- Order Date: 23.09.2025
- Case Number: Commercial Appeal No. 24 of 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:170327-DB
- Name of Court: High Court of Allahabad
- Name of Hon’ble Judges: Hon’ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice and Hon’ble Kshitij Shailendra, J
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
