{"id":14816,"date":"2026-01-27T06:38:26","date_gmt":"2026-01-27T06:38:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=14816"},"modified":"2026-01-27T06:46:45","modified_gmt":"2026-01-27T06:46:45","slug":"bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Prior Use Versus Goodwill in Passing Of"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment, delivered by a division bench, underscores the distinction between mere prior use and the requirement to establish protectable goodwill in passing off actions, even when the defendant holds a registered trademark.<\/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\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/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\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Key_Claims_in_Factual_Background\" >Key Claims in Factual Background<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/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\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Reasoning_and_Decision_of_Court\" >Reasoning and Decision of Court<\/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\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Assessment_of_Prior_Use_Evidence\" >Assessment of Prior Use Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Requirement_of_Explicit_Goodwill_Finding\" >Requirement of Explicit Goodwill Finding<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Final_Directions_of_the_Court\" >Final Directions of the Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bonerich-vs-bonrich-passing-off-prior-use-delhi-high-court\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>At stake were competing marks &#8220;BONERICH&#8221; and &#8220;BONRICH&#8221; for medicinal products aimed at bone health, highlighting how courts balance statutory registration rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, against common law remedies for unregistered marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant, a sole proprietor, challenged the restraint on his use of &#8220;BONERICH,&#8221; arguing that the respondent&#8217;s claim lacked foundational proof of reputation predating his adoption, while the respondent defended its prior user status dating back to a proprietorship era.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court&#8217;s intervention, setting aside the injunction, reinforces that passing off cannot succeed on priority alone but demands evidence of market recognition and potential harm, drawing on precedents like Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The dispute centers on two phonetically and visually similar trademarks, &#8220;BONERICH&#8221; and &#8220;BONRICH,&#8221; both used for pharmaceutical preparations related to bone health and nutritional supplements under Class 5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant, Kedar Nath Mishra, operating as a sole proprietor, asserted that he honestly adopted and began using &#8220;BONERICH&#8221; on August 29, 2011, for marketing and distributing medicinal products, claiming continuous and uninterrupted commercial use that built distinctiveness and exclusive association with his goods over time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>To secure statutory protection, he first applied for registration on September 18, 2013, but the application was refused due to non-prosecution of objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act; subsequently, a fresh application on December 5, 2018, led to registration on February 8, 2021, with claimed prior use from 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent, Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd., incorporated on February 22, 2011, engaged in pharmaceuticals including allopathic, ayurvedic, and homeopathic medicines, contended that its promoter, Mukesh Kumar, had adopted &#8220;BONRICH&#8221; since 2007 through his proprietorship firm, initially named Marx Remedies and later Invision Medi Sciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Upon incorporation, the respondent claimed the entire business, including goodwill and trademarks, was transferred to it, enabling continuous use of &#8220;BONRICH&#8221; from 2007 onward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant became aware of the respondent&#8217;s mark on July 29, 2021, when the latter applied for registration under Application No. 5064847, initially claiming use from November 18, 2011\u2014a date postdating the appellant&#8217;s adoption\u2014but later amended to December 31, 2007, via a form filed on January 18, 2023, supported by an Assignment Deed dated January 14, 2023, formalizing the transfer from Marx Remedies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent bolstered its prior use claim with documents like VAT registrations, licenses, stock registers, invoices showing sales of Rs. 25.73 lakhs from 2007-2011 and Rs. 1.05 crores thereafter, CA certificates, and evidence of pan-India distribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Conversely, the appellant challenged these as fabricated, pointing to inconsistencies in the respondent&#8217;s pleadings about Marx Remedies&#8217; existence and the absence of any mention of its takeover in the respondent&#8217;s Memorandum of Association, which only referenced Invision Medi Sciences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This factual matrix revealed a classic conflict between a registered mark&#8217;s proprietor asserting infringement and a prior user relying on common law rights through assignment and succession, setting the stage for examining whether documentary evidence of use sufficed without proven market reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"key-claims-in-factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Claims_in_Factual_Background\"><\/span>Key Claims in Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Party<\/th><th>Mark<\/th><th>Claimed Use Since<\/th><th>Basis of Claim<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Appellant<\/td><td>BONERICH<\/td><td>August 29, 2011<\/td><td>Honest adoption and continuous commercial use<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondent<\/td><td>BONRICH<\/td><td>December 31, 2007<\/td><td>Proprietorship use and subsequent assignment<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The proceedings commenced with the appellant filing a commercial suit, CS (COMM) 702\/2022, before the District Judge (Commercial Court-01), South, Saket, Delhi, seeking permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off, along with delivery-up, damages, and costs, based on the deceptive similarity between &#8220;BONERICH&#8221; and &#8220;BONRICH&#8221; for identical goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Accompanying the suit was an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for interim relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Summons were served on the respondent on January 12, 2023, prompting it to file a written statement denying the claims, alleging suppression by the appellant, and asserting prior use since 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Simultaneously, the respondent lodged a counter-claim, CS (COMM) 79\/2023, for passing off, seeking similar injunctive relief against the appellant, supported by its own interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, an application under Section 124(2) of the Trade Marks Act for permission to file rectification proceedings challenging the appellant&#8217;s registration, and relying on the amended user claim and Assignment Deed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellant responded with an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accusing the respondent of perjury through fabricated documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Commercial Court, in its order dated June 7, 2024, disposed of the interim applications by:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Dismissing the appellant&#8217;s plea for injunction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Granting the respondent&#8217;s counter-claim interim relief restraining the appellant from using &#8220;BONERICH.&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Allowing three months for rectification proceedings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Deferring the Section 340 application to trial.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Aggrieved solely by the injunction in the counter-claim, the appellant filed two appeals under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>FAO (COMM) 160\/2024 challenging the dismissal of his interim application.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>FAO (COMM) 159\/2024 assailing the grant of injunction to the respondent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides on prior use, goodwill, assignment validity, and passing off elements, delivered an oral judgment on January 13, 2026, partly allowing the appeals by setting aside the injunction against the appellant, while clarifying that observations were prima facie and not binding on trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-decision-of-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Decision_of_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Decision of Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The division bench of the Delhi High Court meticulously analyzed the impugned order, emphasizing the limited appellate scope under <em>Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd.<\/em>, where interference is warranted only for arbitrariness, perversity, or disregard of legal principles, and found the Commercial Court&#8217;s grant of injunction flawed for failing to establish goodwill and reputation essential to passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Recalling the tripartite test for passing off\u2014goodwill\/reputation, misrepresentation, and damage\u2014from precedents like <em>Pernod Ricard<\/em> and <em>FDC Ltd. v. Faraway Foods (P) Ltd.<\/em>, the court noted that prior use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act defends against infringement but does not suffice for affirmative passing off relief without proven market recognition predating the rival&#8217;s adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"assessment-of-prior-use-evidence\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Assessment_of_Prior_Use_Evidence\"><\/span>Assessment of Prior Use Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The bench observed that while the Commercial Court prima facie accepted the respondent&#8217;s prior use since 2007 based on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Invoices<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sales figures (Rs. 25.73 lakhs pre-2011, Rs. 1.05 crores post)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Licenses<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Pan-India presence<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>it merely catalogued these without evaluating if they translated into goodwill by August 29, 2011, when the appellant adopted &#8220;BONERICH.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"requirement-of-explicit-goodwill-finding\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Requirement_of_Explicit_Goodwill_Finding\"><\/span>Requirement of Explicit Goodwill Finding<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Rejecting the respondent&#8217;s argument that such findings were implicit, the court stressed that passing off requires explicit prima facie satisfaction on reputation, as mere sales do not automatically confer protectable goodwill without evidence of consumer association or market impact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The bench dismissed the appellant&#8217;s challenges to the Assignment Deed and Marx Remedies&#8217; existence as trial issues but held that even assuming valid prior use, the absence of goodwill findings vitiated the injunction, rendering it an error on principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-directions-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Directions_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Directions of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Consequently, the court:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Set aside the restraint on the appellant&#8217;s use of &#8220;BONERICH&#8221;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dismissed the respondent&#8217;s interim application in the counter-claim<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Clarified that its observations were tentative and would not influence the final trial<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus, the court balanced interim equities without prejudging the merits of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment crystallizes the principle that in an action for passing off, particularly at the interim stage, mere establishment of prior use of a mark does not entitle a party to injunctive relief against a subsequent user, even if the latter holds a registered trademark, unless the court records a prima facie finding on the existence of goodwill and reputation in the mark predating the rival&#8217;s adoption, as goodwill forms the sine qua non of the tort, distinct from statutory defenses under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It reiterates that passing off requires proof of the classical trinity:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Goodwill \/ Reputation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Misrepresentation leading to confusion<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Actual or likely damage<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Courts are mandated to analyze evidence like sales figures and geographical presence not just descriptively but evaluatively to determine if they evince market recognition capable of deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision affirms that appellate courts will interfere under Order XXXIX CPC if lower courts grant injunctions without explicit satisfaction on these elements, preventing presumptive relief based solely on documentary use without reputational impact, and underscores that allegations of document fabrication under Section 340 CrPC are trial matters not preempting interim assessments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Case Title<\/th><td>Kedar Nath Mishra Vs Invision Medi Sciences Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Order<\/th><td>13 January 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>FAO (COMM) 159\/2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:352:DB<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judges<\/th><td>Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br><br><strong>Written By:\u00a0Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, <\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction This judgment, delivered by a division bench, underscores the distinction between mere prior use and the requirement to establish protectable goodwill in passing off actions, even when the defendant holds a registered trademark. At stake were competing marks &#8220;BONERICH&#8221; and &#8220;BONRICH&#8221; for medicinal products aimed at bone health, highlighting how courts balance statutory registration<\/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":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14816","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14816","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=14816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}