{"id":11929,"date":"2025-11-19T10:17:46","date_gmt":"2025-11-19T10:17:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11929"},"modified":"2025-11-19T10:23:12","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T10:23:12","slug":"common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/","title":{"rendered":"Common Law Protection of Trade Names in Local Markets"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff, Devraj, had been running a saree business in Bhiwani for nearly forty years under the name \u201cBimal Saree Centre\u201d, earning goodwill and reputation among local customers. Documentary evidence including bills, income tax returns, bank account documents, advertisements and GST registration proved that the business was not only old but also widely known.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Procedural_History\" >Procedural History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Core_Dispute_for_Adjudication\" >Core Dispute for Adjudication<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/common-law-protection-of-trade-names-in-local-markets\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The defendants, who earlier ran a hosiery shop at the same location under the traditional family name \u201cDharampal Di Hatti\u201d, later started selling sarees. The evidence showed that for almost four decades the defendants did not use the name \u201cVimal\u201d at all.<\/p>\n<p>In 2021, the defendants changed their business name unexpectedly to \u201cVimal Saree Palace\u201d, despite having an established older business identity. The new shop was located only six shops before the plaintiff\u2019s shop in the same street, meaning close proximity. The names \u201cVimal Saree Palace\u201d and \u201cBimal Saree Centre\u201d, especially when written in Hindi, looked and sounded very similar.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>This caused customers to confuse both shops<\/li>\n<li>Customers asked about \u201cBimal Saree Centre\u201d while inside defendants\u2019 shop<\/li>\n<li>Defendants hired plaintiff\u2019s ex-employee, supporting dishonest intent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to restrain the defendants from using the deceptively similar name.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-history\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History\"><\/span>Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Trial Court decreed the suit on 17.10.2022, restraining the defendants from using the trade name \u201cVimal Saree Palace\u201d or \u201cVimal Wadhwa Saree Palace\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>The defendants filed Regular First Appeal (RFA-1291-2022) before the High Court and argued that:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>They had already changed their name from \u201cVimal Saree Palace\u201d to \u201cVimal Wadhwa Saree Palace,\u201d making the suit infructuous.<\/li>\n<li>The plaintiff himself did not appear as a witness.<\/li>\n<li>Other saree shops existed in the area, so no monopoly could existed. The word \u201cVimal\/Bimal\u201d was generic and could be used by anyone.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute_for_Adjudication\"><\/span>Core Dispute for Adjudication<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central issue before the High Court was whether the defendants\u2019 use of the business name \u201cVimal Saree Palace \/ Vimal Wadhwa Saree Palace\u201d amounted to passing-off, causing confusion and deception among customers who associated saree sales in that area with the well-known and pre-existing business \u201cBimal Saree Centre.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court found that the plaintiff established prior and long-standing usage of the trade name \u201cBimal Saree Centre\u201d supported through documentary evidence and testimony of PW-1 Rajesh Kumar (plaintiff\u2019s son and power of attorney). The Court accepted his testimony as he managed the business personally and was aware of all transactions, and relied on the Supreme Court in Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512, to hold that where the authorised attorney operates day-to-day business, his deposition is valid despite the plaintiff not appearing in person.<\/p>\n<p>The Court rejected the defendants\u2019 argument that the name had been voluntarily changed to avoid confusion. The Local Commissioner\u2019s report and photographs showed that the defendants continued displaying the word \u201cVimal\u201d prominently, violating even the undertaking given before the Court.<\/p>\n<p>The Court held that the phonetic and visual similarity between \u201cVimal\u201d and \u201cBimal,\u201d particularly in Hindi script, created clear likelihood of deception and confusion. Evidence also showed that even independent dealers mistakenly addressed the defendants as \u201cBimal Wadhwa Saree Palace\u201d instead of \u201cVimal Wadhwa Saree Palace\u201d, proving confusion beyond customers.<\/p>\n<p>The Court further accepted sales decline proved through GST returns, noting a clear drop in the plaintiff\u2019s turnover after the defendants adopted the confusing name. It observed that since the documents were exhibited without objection, the defendants could not later challenge them on mode of proof. Reliance was placed on Bhagwan Dass v. Khem Chand, 1973 AIR Punjab &amp; Haryana 477 and Gopal Das (Privy Council, AIR 1943 PC 83).<\/p>\n<p>The Court relied on the earlier binding precedent D.P. Jagan and Sons v. M\/s D.P. Jagan &amp; Co. (RFA-1571-2017 decided on 12.05.2020) to reinforce that a prior user of a business name is entitled to protection under common law of passing-off, even without trademark registration, and that similar business names used in the same street amount to actionable deception.<\/p>\n<p>The Court concluded that adoption of \u201cVimal\u201d instead of \u201cBimal\u201d was intentional, dishonest and commercially motivated to capture plaintiff\u2019s goodwill. The fact that the defendants had an earlier business name and abandoned it\u2014despite it having a longer history\u2014showed malafide intention.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"final-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court upheld the Trial Court\u2019s decree and permanently restrained the defendants from using the trade names \u201cVimal Saree Palace\u201d or \u201cVimal Wadhwa Saree Palace\u201d or any other deceptively similar name likely to lead customers to believe that their goods and services were connected with \u201cBimal Saree Centre.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Dharampal and Others Vs. Devraj<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>RFA-1291-2022 (O&amp;M)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>2025:PHHC:148569<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Date of Decision<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>29 October 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Justice Vikas Bahl<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts The plaintiff, Devraj, had been running a saree business in Bhiwani for nearly forty years under the name \u201cBimal Saree Centre\u201d, earning goodwill and reputation among local customers. Documentary evidence including bills, income tax returns, bank account documents, advertisements and GST registration proved that the business was not only old but also widely known.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-11929","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11929","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11929"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11929\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11929"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11929"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11929"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}