{"id":7376,"date":"2025-08-19T09:44:51","date_gmt":"2025-08-19T09:44:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=7376"},"modified":"2025-08-19T09:55:16","modified_gmt":"2025-08-19T09:55:16","slug":"prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/","title":{"rendered":"Prior User Rights of Trademark and Fabricated Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"<article lang=\"en\">\n<header>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reckitt_Benckiser_India_Private_Limited_Vs_Sauss_Home_Products_Private_Limited\"><\/span>Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 14th August, 2025<\/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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#Reckitt_Benckiser_India_Private_Limited_Vs_Sauss_Home_Products_Private_Limited\" >Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited<\/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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#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\/prior-user-rights-of-trademark-and-fabricated-evidence\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> CS(COMM) 539\/2023<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:6856<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> <a href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">High Court of Delhi<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge:<\/strong> Amit Bansal<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<section id=\"introduction\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment addresses a dispute in intellectual property law concerning the infringement of <a href=\"\/trademarks-copyrights\/trademark.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">trademarks<\/a> and <a href=\"\/copyright\/register.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">copyrights<\/a> related to a bird device mark used in laundry and cleaning products. The plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, sought protection for its &#8216;Robin&#8217; bird device mark, claiming prior adoption and use since 1899 globally and 1942 in India, against the defendant, Sauss Home Products Private Limited, which asserted use since 1976. The High Court of Delhi examined issues of prior user rights, fabricated evidence, delay in filing, and territorial jurisdiction, ultimately granting an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff while dismissing the defendant&#8217;s plea for rejection of the plaint. The decision underscores the principles of passing off and the superiority of prior user rights over subsequent registrations, even in cases involving registered marks.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"factual-background\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff is an Indian subsidiary of the global Reckitt Group, engaged in fast-moving consumer goods including bleaching and cleaning preparations, with a turnover exceeding INR 8,000 crores in India and USD 17 billion globally. The Reckitt Group adopted the &#8216;Robin&#8217; mark and bird device in 1899 for rice starch products, using it continuously worldwide and in India since 1942, securing multiple trademark and copyright registrations, including the subject device mark registered in 1998. The plaintiff demonstrated extensive sales and advertising, claiming goodwill in the mark.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant, incorporated in 2013, manufactures washing soaps and detergents, claiming adoption of a similar bird device mark since 1976 through a predecessor entity, with registrations from 2006 onward. The plaintiff learned of the defendant&#8217;s use in 2017 via a trademark application, opposed it, and filed the suit in 2023 after discovering actual sales, alleging infringement and passing off. The defendant countered with claims of prior use, filing rectification petitions against the plaintiff&#8217;s marks and a prior suit in Agra where an interim order was stayed.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"procedural-background\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The suit was filed on 8 August 2023 seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction was filed, along with the defendant&#8217;s application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 CPC for rejection\/return of the plaint on jurisdictional grounds. Summons were issued on 8 August 2023, with the defendant appearing on 18 October 2023. No ex parte injunction was granted initially. Pleadings were completed, and arguments were heard on 6 March 2025, 24 April 2025, and 13 May 2025, with judgment reserved on the latter date and pronounced on 14 August 2025. The court also referenced a parallel suit in Agra where the defendant&#8217;s interim relief was dismissed on 25 February 2025.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"core-dispute\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The primary issue was whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff&#8217;s trademarks and copyrights in the &#8216;Robin&#8217; bird device mark and passed off its goods as those of the plaintiff. Key sub-issues included determining prior user and adopter of the identical marks for similar goods, the validity of the defendant&#8217;s prior use claims based on allegedly fabricated documents, the impact of delay in filing the suit, and the court&#8217;s territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC, given the plaintiff&#8217;s Haryana office and sales in Delhi. The dispute highlighted the tension between registered rights and common law passing off principles, with the plaintiff asserting global heritage and the defendant claiming local prior adoption since 1976.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"discussion-judgments\">\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 parties and court referenced several precedents to support their positions on prior user rights, delay, and injunctions. The plaintiff relied on <em>S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai<\/em>, (2016) 2 SCC 683, in the context of arguing that prior user rights prevail over subsequent registrations, emphasizing that passing off actions remain viable despite statutory registrations. <em>Hindustan Pencils Private Limited v. India Stationery Products Co.<\/em>, AIR 1990 Delhi 19, was cited by the plaintiff to contend that mere delay does not bar interim relief if the defendant&#8217;s adoption is dishonest, as the court must consider fraudulent intent over laches. Similarly, <em>Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia<\/em>, (2004) 3 SCC 90, was invoked by the plaintiff to reinforce that in trademark infringement suits, delay alone is insufficient to deny injunction, particularly where dishonesty is evident.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant did not cite additional judgments beyond challenging the plaintiff&#8217;s claims, but the court applied these precedents to prioritize prior use and dismiss delay defenses.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"reasoning-analysis\">\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>Justice Amit Bansal analyzed the rival marks as nearly identical in shape, color, and layout, used for identical goods, likely causing confusion. Focusing on passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the judge prioritized prior user rights, finding the plaintiff&#8217;s evidence from 1998-2000, including artist interviews and sales certificates, prima facie credible.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant&#8217;s 1976 claim was rejected as fabricated, particularly the &#8216;Sainik Newspaper&#8217; document from 1997 reporting post-1997 events, deeming it manufactured without needing further inquiry at interim stage. Other defendant documents referenced only &#8216;Pooja&#8217; mark, not the bird device. Delay was dismissed as non-fatal given dishonest adoption, per established precedents.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"final-decision\">\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The court allowed the plaintiff&#8217;s interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, restraining the defendant from using the bird device mark or infringing the plaintiff&#8217;s copyright until final adjudication. Observations were limited to the interim stage.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"law-settled\">\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<p>This decision reaffirms that prior user rights in passing off actions supersede subsequent trademark registrations, even if valid. It clarifies that fabricated evidence undermines prior use claims, and delay does not bar injunctions where adoption is dishonest. The judgment also settles that jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC extends to places of sale and online accessibility, emphasizing protection of goodwill in identical marks for similar goods.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<footer><small>Prepared for legal-summary purposes. Content presented exactly as provided; readability and structure improved for clarity.<\/small><\/p>\n<\/footer>\n<\/article>\n<p>Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/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>Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited Vs Sauss Home Products Private Limited Date of Order: 14th August, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 539\/2023 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6856 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge: Amit Bansal Introduction This judgment addresses a dispute in intellectual property law concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights related<\/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-7376","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\/7376","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=7376"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7376\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}