{"id":7394,"date":"2025-08-19T10:42:33","date_gmt":"2025-08-19T10:42:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=7394"},"modified":"2025-08-19T10:51:39","modified_gmt":"2025-08-19T10:51:39","slug":"passing-off-and-device-marks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/","title":{"rendered":"Passing Off and Device Marks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 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>The case of Nakoda Food Marketing Vs Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, involves a significant dispute over the trademark &#8220;SALONI&#8221; under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellants challenged an order from the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi, which upheld an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining them from using the &#8220;SALONI&#8221; trademark and device.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 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\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#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-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/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\/passing-off-and-device-marks\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>This appeal, filed under Section 13 of the <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"\/legal\/article-2301-obligations-under-section-15-of-the-commercial-courts-act-2015-and-order-xi-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure.html\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/a>, and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, addresses issues of <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"\/trademarks-copyrights\/trademark.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">trademark<\/a> infringement, passing off, and the validity of interim reliefs in intellectual property disputes, providing a critical examination of competing claims to a registered mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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 appellants, M\/s Nakoda Food Marketing and others, assert ownership of the registered trademark &#8220;SALONI&#8221; under Class 30 for cereal-based preparations, including namkeen, claiming continuous use over the past three decades. They operate a business centered on these products, establishing a significant market presence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent, M\/s Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, also claims proprietorship of the &#8220;SALONI&#8221; trademark and its device, including a pictorial label featuring a female figure, registered across various classes. The respondent alleges that the appellants&#8217; use of the mark infringes on its rights and constitutes passing off, leading to confusion among consumers. The dispute escalated when the respondent discovered the appellants&#8217; use of the mark, prompting legal action to protect its intellectual property.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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 respondent initiated CS (COMM) No. 51\/2024 before the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, <a href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">New Delhi<\/a>, invoking Sections 134, 135, and 29 of the <a href=\"\/trademarks-copyrights\/trademark.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Trade Marks Act<\/a>, 1999, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs against the appellants for trademark infringement and passing off. On January 30, 2024, the Commercial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the appellants&#8217; premises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The appellants filed an application under <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalservicesindia.com\/law\/article\/2519\/4\/Order-XXXII-and-XXXIII-of-CPC-\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC <\/a>to vacate the injunction, which was dismissed by an order dated May 1, 2024, confirming the interim relief. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants appealed to the High Court of Delhi, with the matter heard and decided orally on August 7, 2025, by Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The central issue is whether the Commercial Court&#8217;s order granting and upholding the ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the appellants was justified, given the competing claims to the &#8220;SALONI&#8221; trademark. The dispute focuses on determining the rightful owner of the mark, assessing the likelihood of confusion between the parties&#8217; uses, and evaluating the balance of convenience and irreparable harm. The appellants argue that their prior use and registration under Class 30 entitle them to continue, while the respondent contends that its broader registrations and device mark, including the female figure, establish superior rights, necessitating the injunction to prevent market confusion and loss of goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The parties and court relied on several judicial precedents to support their positions. The appellants cited <em>N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714<\/em>, to argue that prior use of a trademark confers superior rights, challenging the respondent&#8217;s claim based on later registrations. They also referenced <em>S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683<\/em>, to assert that passing off actions require proof of deception, which they denied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The respondent relied on <em>Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65<\/em>, to support the injunction, arguing that similarity in marks and goods justifies interim relief to protect goodwill. The court drew on <em>Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90<\/em>, to emphasize that delay alone does not bar injunctions if infringement is established, and referenced <em>Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Delhi 19<\/em>, to affirm that dishonest adoption strengthens the case for relief, influencing the judicial reasoning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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\n\n\n<p>Justice Om Prakash Shukla, delivering the oral judgment, conducted a thorough analysis of the trademark claims, focusing on the principles governing interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The court recognized the appellants&#8217; trademark registration in relation to &#8220;preparations made from cereals (Namkeen) and seeds. However the Court permitted the Appellant to use the product in relation to which it was having registration, i.e. for preparations made from cereals (Namkeen) and seeds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court permitted the Appellant to use the product in relation to which it was having registration i.e. for &#8220;preparations made from cereals (Namkeen) and seeds..<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><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\n\n\n<p>This judgment reaffirms that interim injunctions in trademark disputes can be granted based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, even when prior use is claimed by the defendant, provided the plaintiff&#8217;s registered mark and device show distinctiveness. It clarifies that the similarity of marks and potential consumer confusion outweigh delays in seeking relief, and the appointment of a Local Commissioner can substantiate infringement claims. The decision underscores the protective scope of registered trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, pending a full trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 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<p>Case Title:Nakoda Food Marketing Vs Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited Date of Order:07 August, 2025 Case Number:FAO (COMM) 92\/2024 Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:56789 Name of Court:<a target=\"_blank\" href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">High Court of Delhi<\/a> Name of Judge:Om Prakash Shukla and C. Hari Shankar<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Note: Content has been reformatted for readability without changes to the substantive text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> 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.<br><br><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br>Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The case of Nakoda Food Marketing Vs Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, involves a significant dispute over the trademark &#8220;SALONI&#8221; under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appellants challenged an order from the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi, which upheld an<\/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-7394","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\/7394","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=7394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}