LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Parakh Vanijya Private Limited v. Baroma Agro Product

Civil Appeal · 2018 INSC 602Decided 12 Jul 2018
Civil Appeal No. 6642 of 2018
Justice Ranjan Gogoi · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

The appellant, which had sold Biryani Rice under the mark "MALABAR" since 2001, sued the respondents for trademark infringement and passing off after the respondents began using a similar "MALABAR" label alongside their own "BAROMA" mark. An interim injunction originally restraining the respondents was later modified by the Single Judge (with party consent) to let the respondents use "MALABAR" in conjunction with "BAROMA" with a different get-up, and the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench upheld that modified order. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court against this modification.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the appellant's own trademark registration carried an explicit disclaimer denying it exclusive rights over the word "MALABAR," and other traders already held similar registrations (e.g., "MALABAR MONSOON," "MALABAR COAST") with the same kind of disclaimer. Comparing the two labels, the Court found them substantially different with no deceptive similarity, given the differing get-up and the respondents' own established business turnover. The Court therefore saw no infirmity in the High Court's order and dismissed the appeal, while expressly leaving all contentious issues open to be resolved in the still-pending underlying infringement suit.

Lesson Learnt

A trademark registration that carries a disclaimer on a particular word (common for generic/geographic terms) does not give the registrant exclusive rights to that word, and courts assessing interim relief will weigh the actual visual similarity of marks as used, not just overlapping words.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case