{"id":28095,"date":"2026-07-23T05:56:58","date_gmt":"2026-07-23T05:56:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=28095"},"modified":"2026-07-23T06:07:46","modified_gmt":"2026-07-23T06:07:46","slug":"sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/","title":{"rendered":"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark &#8216;MATKEWALA&#8217; Cannot Be Monopolized"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The protection of marks that contain descriptive elements of a product&#8217;s preparation or composition is one of the most litigated areas of trademark law. While businesses strive to secure exclusive rights over terms that consumers easily associate with their products, trademark law aims to keep descriptive terms free for all traders to use. The High Court of Delhi addressed this delicate balance in a passing-off dispute concerning the term <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong> used on roasted grams and groundnuts. The ruling offers clear guidance on when a commercial term crosses the line from a distinctive source-identifier to a generic or descriptive description of the preparation process.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 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\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#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\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Case_Overview\" >Case Overview<\/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\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/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\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Plaintiffs_Contentions\" >Plaintiff&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Defendants_Contentions\" >Defendant&#8217;s Contentions<\/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\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Application_of_Section_34_of_the_Trade_and_Merchandise_Marks_Act_1958\" >Application of Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Precedent_Relied_Upon\" >Precedent Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Courts_Findings_on_the_Term_%E2%80%9CMATKEWALA%E2%80%9D\" >Court&#8217;s Findings on the Term &#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221;<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Effect_of_Earlier_Litigation\" >Effect of Earlier Litigation<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Key_Legal_Principles\" >Key Legal Principles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dr-aloys-wobben-v-yogesh-mehra-patent-revocation-counterclaim-section-64-patents-act\/\">Dr. Aloys Wobben v. Yogesh Mehra (2014): Supreme Court Clarifies Patent Revocation vs. Counterclaim Under Section 64 of the Patents Act<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/panchayati-raj-system-in-india-constitutional-framework-structure-and-significance\/\">Panchayati Raj System in India: Constitutional Framework, Structure, and Significance<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sop-for-investigation-of-offences-related-to-black-marketing-hoarding-and-profiteering\/\">SOP for Investigation of Offences Related to Black Marketing, Hoarding, and Profiteering<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/law-enforcement-and-price-control-of-essential-commodities\/\">Law Enforcement and Price Control of Essential Commodities<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-d-tan-trademark-honasa-descriptive-trademark-judgment\/\">Delhi High Court Cancels D-TAN Trademark: Honasa Wins Landmark Case on Descriptive Trademarks Under the Trade Marks Act<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-overview\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Overview\"><\/span>Case Overview<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>Particular<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment<\/td><td>March 19, 1999<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>Suit No. 2255 of 1998<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Citation<\/td><td>1999 SCC OnLine Del 219<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Judge<\/td><td>Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature of Case<\/td><td>Passing Off and Trademark Dispute<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Written By<\/td><td>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff, Sant Kumar Mehra, was engaged in the business of processing and selling roasted grams, roasted groundnuts, Gajak, Rewari, Patti, and allied food items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the plaintiff, these products were packaged and sold in paper bags and wraps bearing the trademark <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong>, often accompanied by the visual device of an earthen pot or Matka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff claimed continuous and extensive use of this mark starting from the year 1958.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To secure statutory protection, the plaintiff filed an application for the registration of the trademark <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong> along with the earthen pot device on March 13, 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Although the application was accepted by the trademark registry, the registration certificate had not yet been formally issued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the second week of October 1998, the defendant, Ram Lakhan, entered the market, selling and offering for sale roasted grams and groundnuts under the mark <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In response, the plaintiff filed a civil suit in the High Court of Delhi seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from passing off his products under the <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong> mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Along with the main suit, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for an ad-interim temporary injunction to immediately halt the defendant&#8217;s sales during the pendency of the litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendant contested the application, filing a formal reply that challenged the distinctiveness of the mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The primary legal and factual question before the Court was whether the plaintiff could establish a prima facie case of passing off against the defendant to warrant a temporary injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-plaintiff-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Plaintiffs_Contentions\"><\/span>Plaintiff&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff contended that by virtue of prior, long-standing, and extensive commercial use since 1958, the mark <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong> had acquired a secondary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The plaintiff argued that the mark was exclusively associated with his food products in the minds of the consuming public, representing a highly valuable business reputation and goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Therefore, the defendant&#8217;s subsequent use of the identical mark on identical goods was a classic case of passing off, designed to deceive buyers and trade on the plaintiff&#8217;s established reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-defendant-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Contentions\"><\/span>Defendant&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The defendant countered that the term <strong>&#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221;<\/strong> was entirely descriptive of the character, nature, and processing method of the goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He explained that roasted grams and groundnuts are traditionally prepared by heating them in an earthen pot (matka) filled with hot sand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The term <strong>&#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221;<\/strong> and the associated image of an earthen pot were widely used by multiple traders to inform consumers that the items were processed in this traditional manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Relying on Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the defendant argued that no single trader could monopolize a descriptive term that reflects the quality or preparation of the product and that his own use was bona fide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because the plaintiff&#8217;s trademark application was still pending registration, the court treated the suit strictly as an action for passing off under common law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In such cases, the key factors for a temporary injunction are prior user, the establishing of goodwill, and the likelihood of deception.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court acknowledged that the evidence on record prima facie pointed to the plaintiff being the prior user of the mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">However, the Court observed that prior use alone does not justify an injunction if the mark itself is descriptive of the character or quality of the goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-application-of-section-34-of-the-trade-and-merchandise-marks-act-1958\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_Section_34_of_the_Trade_and_Merchandise_Marks_Act_1958\"><\/span>Application of Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To evaluate this, the Court turned to the statutory protection afforded to descriptive terms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Under Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, a registered trademark owner cannot interfere with any person&#8217;s bona fide use of a description of the character or quality of their goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court extended this principle to passing off actions, noting that if a term is prima facie descriptive, a plaintiff cannot prevent another trader from using it in a descriptive manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-precedent-relied-upon\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Precedent_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Precedent Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">For guidance on determining descriptiveness, the Court relied on the precedent of <strong>Kala Niketan v. Kala Niketan (AIR 1983 Delhi 161)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In that case, the Delhi High Court adopted the test of descriptiveness from Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that the true test is whether a name or phrase is commonly used or is reasonably indicative and descriptive of the thing intended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A mark is considered descriptive if it provides information regarding the general nature, preparation, or character of the articles, looking at the mark as a whole and considering the impression it conveys to the ordinary public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-court-s-findings-on-the-term-matkewala\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Findings_on_the_Term_%E2%80%9CMATKEWALA%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>Court&#8217;s Findings on the Term &#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221;<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Applying this test, the Court closely examined the bills and sales receipts submitted by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The documents showed that the plaintiff sold various items under names like &#8220;yellow grams,&#8221; &#8220;matkewala grams,&#8221; and &#8220;matka groundnuts.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court reasoned that by using these terms side-by-side, the plaintiff himself was using <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong> descriptively to distinguish a specific style of processed gram from other varieties, like yellow gram.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The term <strong>&#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221;<\/strong> directly signaled to the public that the groundnuts or grams were prepared using the traditional earthen pot and sand method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Thus, the word described the nature, preparation method, and quality of the product rather than pointing to the plaintiff as the unique source of origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-effect-of-earlier-litigation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Effect_of_Earlier_Litigation\"><\/span>Effect of Earlier Litigation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, the Court looked at a prior litigation, Suit Number 30 of 1996 (Sant Kumar Mehra v. Mehra Sons), where the plaintiff had sued a third party for using the mark &#8220;MATKA.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In that proceeding, the court had held that the marks &#8220;MATKA&#8221; and &#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221; were distinct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The fact that the plaintiff used &#8220;MATKA&#8221; and &#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221; interchangeably on his receipts showed that there was no consistent intent to project <strong>MATKEWALA<\/strong> as an exclusive, proprietary trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Because the term was inherently descriptive of the traditional roasting process, the defendant&#8217;s use of the term was protected as a bona fide description of his own goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to satisfy the essential requirements for the grant of an interim injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Specifically, the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, as the word <strong>&#8220;MATKEWALA&#8221;<\/strong> was a descriptive term rather than a distinctive trademark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff&#8217;s temporary injunction application, I.A. No. 9321 of 1998.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court specified that the observations made in the order were prime facie in nature and would not prejudice the final trial of the suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Descriptive words cannot be monopolized by a single trader under trademark law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Passing off protection is unavailable where the mark merely describes the preparation process, quality, or character of the goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prior use alone is insufficient if the mark itself is descriptive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bona fide descriptive use is protected under Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A trader&#8217;s own descriptive use of a term may weaken a claim of exclusive trademark rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sales invoices, receipts, and commercial documents can be important evidence in determining whether a mark is used descriptively or as a badge of origin.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgment reaffirms that descriptive words cannot be monopolized by a single trader under the guise of trademark protection, even in common law passing off actions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling clarifies that a term is descriptive if it indicates the preparation process, character, or quality of the product to the general public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, the decision illustrates that if a prior user employs a term interchangeably with other descriptive words or uses it on sales receipts to differentiate product types, it undermines their claim of exclusive trademark significance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case serves as a vital precedent for protecting the rights of public traders to use common, industry-standard descriptive terms to accurately represent their processing methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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>Particular<\/th><th>Information<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Title of the Case<\/td><td>Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment<\/td><td>March 19, 1999<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>Suit No. 2255 of 1998<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Citation<\/td><td>1999 SCC OnLine Del 219<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Honorable Judge<\/td><td>Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Written By<\/td><td>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The protection of marks that contain descriptive elements of a product&#8217;s preparation or composition is one of the most litigated areas of trademark law. While businesses strive to secure exclusive rights over terms that consumers easily associate with their products, trademark law aims to keep descriptive terms free for all traders to use. The<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","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,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-28095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v28.1 (Yoast SEO v28.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark &#039;MATKEWALA&#039; Cannot Be Monopolized - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi HC held &#039;MATKEWALA&#039; descriptive, refusing trademark monopoly. Learn passing off law, Section 34 &amp; key legal principles.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark &#039;MATKEWALA&#039; Cannot Be Monopolized\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi HC held &#039;MATKEWALA&#039; descriptive, refusing trademark monopoly. Learn passing off law, Section 34 &amp; key legal principles.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-23T05:56:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-23T06:07:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark &#8216;MATKEWALA&#8217; Cannot Be Monopolized\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-23T05:56:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-23T06:07:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1585,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/\",\"name\":\"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark 'MATKEWALA' Cannot Be Monopolized - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-23T05:56:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-23T06:07:46+00:00\",\"description\":\"Delhi HC held 'MATKEWALA' descriptive, refusing trademark monopoly. Learn passing off law, Section 34 & key legal principles.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Can a Descriptive Trademark Be Protected? Delhi High Court Explains 'MATKEWALA' Passing Off Case (1999 SCC OnLine Del 219)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark 'MATKEWALA' Cannot Be Monopolized - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Delhi HC held 'MATKEWALA' descriptive, refusing trademark monopoly. Learn passing off law, Section 34 & key legal principles.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark 'MATKEWALA' Cannot Be Monopolized","og_description":"Delhi HC held 'MATKEWALA' descriptive, refusing trademark monopoly. Learn passing off law, Section 34 & key legal principles.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-23T05:56:58+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-23T06:07:46+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark &#8216;MATKEWALA&#8217; Cannot Be Monopolized","datePublished":"2026-07-23T05:56:58+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-23T06:07:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/"},"wordCount":1585,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/","name":"Sant Kumar Mehra v. Ram Lakhan (1999): Delhi High Court Rules Descriptive Trademark 'MATKEWALA' Cannot Be Monopolized - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-23T05:56:58+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-23T06:07:46+00:00","description":"Delhi HC held 'MATKEWALA' descriptive, refusing trademark monopoly. Learn passing off law, Section 34 & key legal principles.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sant-kumar-mehra-v-ram-lakhan-1999-delhi-high-court-rules-descriptive-trademark-matkewala-cannot-be-monopolized\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Can a Descriptive Trademark Be Protected? Delhi High Court Explains 'MATKEWALA' Passing Off Case (1999 SCC OnLine Del 219)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28095","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=28095"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28434,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28095\/revisions\/28434"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}