{"id":6148,"date":"2025-07-12T04:57:12","date_gmt":"2025-07-12T04:57:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6148"},"modified":"2025-07-12T05:03:53","modified_gmt":"2025-07-12T05:03:53","slug":"bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/","title":{"rendered":"Bad Faith Adoption and Trademark Protection"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Newgen_IT_Technologies_Ltd_v_Newgen_Software_Technologies_Ltd\"><\/span>Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<br \/>\n<strong>Judges:<\/strong> Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar<br \/>\n<strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 12 June 2025<br \/>\n<strong>Case Numbers:<\/strong> FAO (COMM) 73\/2025 and FAO (COMM) 75\/2025<br \/>\n<strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:4964<\/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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Newgen_IT_Technologies_Ltd_v_Newgen_Software_Technologies_Ltd\" >Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd.<\/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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Overview\" >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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual 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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Legal_Issue\" >Legal Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/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\/bad-faith-adoption-and-trademark-protection\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Overview\"><\/span>Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute in <em>Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd.<\/em> epitomizes the complexities involved in trademark conflicts, particularly when commercial partnerships deteriorate into litigation. The matter revolves around the alleged infringement and passing off involving the mark <strong>&#8220;NEWGEN&#8221;<\/strong>, a name prominently used in the technology domain.<\/p>\n<p>This case throws light on the intricate interplay between prior use, statutory rights, contractual acknowledgments, and equitable doctrines such as acquiescence in trademark law.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. (the Respondent) is a well-established software development company, incorporated in 1992 and holding trademark registrations for &#8220;NEWGEN&#8221; since 1999, with a user claim dating back to 1992. It has operated in classes 09, 16, 35, and 42, and has heavily invested in brand promotion.<\/p>\n<p>The Appellant, Newgen IT Technologies Ltd., initially operated under the name VCare Infotech Solutions and Services Pvt. Ltd. In July 2023, both parties entered into a Partnership Agreement to collaborate on software-related services. Notably, Article 14 of this agreement acknowledged the Respondent&#8217;s exclusive rights over the &#8220;NEWGEN&#8221; trademarks.<\/p>\n<p>However, in July 2024, the Appellant changed its name to Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. and initiated trademark applications for &#8220;NEWGEN IT&#8221; across multiple classes, while also launching steps to go public via an IPO. The Respondent terminated the partnership in September 2024 and filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off in February 2025.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The learned District Judge (Commercial) at Saket Courts, New Delhi, initially passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 27.02.2025, restraining the Appellant from using the mark &#8220;NEWGEN IT.&#8221; The Appellant\u2019s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC to vacate the injunction was dismissed on 05.03.2025. Consequently, the Appellant preferred FAO (COMM) 73\/2025 and FAO (COMM) 75\/2025 before the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issue\"><\/span>Legal Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Whether the Appellant&#8217;s adoption and use of the mark &#8220;NEWGEN IT&#8221; constituted trademark infringement, passing off, and contractual breach in light of the Respondent&#8217;s prior rights and the Partnership Agreement?<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Appellant relied on <em>Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727<\/em> to argue against appellate interference with discretionary interim orders unless the decision was perverse. The Appellant also cited <em>Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9124<\/em> to claim that the trial court failed to properly assess the balance of convenience.<\/p>\n<p>Other authorities cited by the Appellant include:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, (2010) 2 SCC 142<\/em> \u2014 arguing &#8220;Skyline&#8221; was publici juris<\/li>\n<li><em>Parakh Vanijya (P) Ltd. v. Baroma Agro Products, (2018) 16 SCC 632<\/em> \u2014 coexistence of similar marks<\/li>\n<li><em>PhonePe (P) Ltd. v. Resilient Innovations (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 764<\/em> \u2014 on descriptive marks<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Respondent relied on:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65<\/em> \u2014 stressing prior user rights<\/li>\n<li><em>Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines, (1994) 2 SCC 448<\/em> \u2014 on acquiescence<\/li>\n<li><em>Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., 1955 SCC OnLine SC 12<\/em> \u2014 disclaimers do not affect passing off rights<\/li>\n<li><em>Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73<\/em> \u2014 on deceptive similarity<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court reaffirmed the settled principle from <em>Wander Ltd.<\/em> and <em>Ramakant Ambalal Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3538<\/em> that appellate interference in discretionary orders must be limited to cases of perversity or arbitrariness.<\/p>\n<p>The Court noted the Respondent\u2019s prior and continuous use since 1992, while the Appellant began operations under a different name in 2017 and only rebranded to &#8220;Newgen IT&#8221; during the subsistence of the partnership. The Appellant\u2019s act of adopting a confusingly similar mark while in a contractual relationship acknowledging Respondent&#8217;s exclusive rights indicated mala fides.<\/p>\n<p>Further, Article 14 of the Partnership Agreement clearly vested the rights of the &#8220;NEWGEN&#8221; mark with the Respondent. The Court also found the marks visually and phonetically similar and held that minor distinctions like &#8220;IT&#8221; and &#8220;Software&#8221; were insufficient to avert confusion.<\/p>\n<p>On acquiescence, the Court referred to <em>Power Control Appliances<\/em> and ruled that mere tolerance during the partnership did not amount to legal acquiescence, especially when the Appellant changed its name post-agreement.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Delhi High Court dismissed both appeals. It held that the trial court had applied its discretion judiciously and the Appellant had failed to demonstrate any perversity or material suppression of facts by the Respondent. The interim injunction in favour of the Respondent was upheld.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Prior use and registration of a trademark, coupled with contractual acknowledgment, override claims of concurrent user.<\/li>\n<li>An interim injunction can be granted even against a party who was formerly in partnership if the subsequent conduct indicates bad faith.<\/li>\n<li>Acquiescence cannot be claimed where the tolerance was conditional and contractual.<\/li>\n<li>Appellate courts will not interfere with discretionary interim orders unless the exercise is perverse, arbitrary, or ignores settled legal principles.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>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<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Newgen IT Technologies Ltd. v. Newgen Software Technologies Ltd. Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Judges: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar Date of Order: 12 June 2025 Case Numbers: FAO (COMM) 73\/2025 and FAO (COMM) 75\/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4964 Overview The dispute in Newgen IT Technologies<\/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":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-6148","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6148","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=6148"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6148\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6148"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6148"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6148"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}