Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Sandeep Khatri, Mr. Ujjwal Bhardwaj v. LAND MARK CRAFTS PVT. LTD & ANR on 23 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. An application, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 19081, filed by Landmark Crafts Pvt Ltd2, seeking interlocutory injunction against Ganraj Enterprises3 and others in CS 1 “CPC” hereinafter 2 “LC” hereinafter 3 “GE” hereinafter Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 (Comm) 664/20224, stands allowed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-04), Shahdara5.

2. Aggrieved thereby, GE has preferred the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015.

3. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. J Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, at length. Pleadings before the learned Commercial Court

4. The plaint

4.1 LC, in its plaint, before the learned Commercial Court, asserted as under: (i) The mark HP was coined by Mr. Pankaj Lidoo in 1995. Pankaj Lidoo was operating a sole proprietorship in the name of Landmark Engineers. Under the mark HP, Landmark Engineers was dealing in the business of manufacturing, marketing and trading of self-drilling screws, blind rivets and allied products. (ii) On 8 July 2002, Landmark Fasteners Pvt Ltd6 was incorporated by Mr. Pankaj Lidoo. Application No. 1566805 dated 8 June 2007, filed under Section 23 of the Trade Marks 4 Landmark Crafts Pvt Ltd v. Ganraj Enterprises 5 “the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter 6 “LF” hereinafter Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 Act, 1999 was allowed by the Trade Marks Registry, whereupon LF obtained the registration of the word Mark HP in Class 6 for “all kinds of self-drilling screws” with effect from the said date. However, the registration was restricted for sale of goods in UP. Subsequently, LF submitted Application No. 2848372 on 24 November 2014, in Class 6 for registration of the HP word mark for all kinds of self-drilling screws, which was also granted with no territorial caveat. For the sake of convenience, we would refer, hereinafter, to the registrations asserted by LC by their Applications Numbers, as Registrations No. 1566805 and 2848372.

(iii) The respondent LC was incorporated by Mr. Pankaj Lidoo and some of the directors of LF on 11 May 2007. (iv) Vide Assignment Deeds dated 5 August 2013 and 29 April 2019, the aforenoted HP marks were assigned by LF to LC. Since then, there has been uninterrupted use of the HP mark by LC. Thus, LC was the owner of the registered word mark HP in Class 6 for all kinds of self-drilling screws, on pan- India basis. (v) LC was also the registered proprietor of the device mark with effect from 11 July 2018 in Class 6 for “self- drilling screws, blind rivets and drywall screws”. The said mark was being used by LC on pan-India basis since then. Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 (vi) By dint of continuous use, LC had amassed enviable reputation and goodwill in the aforesaid marks for self-drilling screws, blind rivets and other similar goods. To buttress this submission, the plaint referred to various awards earned by LC as well as its sales turnover and advertisement and promotional expenses. (vii) Appellant 1 GE was the sole proprietorship of Appellant 2 Shubhangi S Jachak. Appellant 2, in collusion with Appellant 3, Santosh Jachak, was, through GE, engaging manufacturing, marketing and selling and otherwise dealing in goods which were identical with or similar to the goods in which LC dealt under its registered mark HP. The appellants were using the mark HP+ and HP®+ for manufacturing, assembling and trading of self-drilling screw, similar to those manufactured and sold by LC. This fact came to the knowledge of LC in the second week of June 2022. (viii) The use of the marks HP+ and HP®+ by GE infringed the registered HP trade mark of LC and also amounted to passing off, by GE, of its products as the products of LC. GE had also resorted to using packaging, for its product, which was similar to the packaging used by LC. The motif of a shikara7, which figured on the packing of LC was also copied by GE on its packaging. The possibility of confusion was exacerbated by GE 7 boat Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 by its use of the superscript ®, despite its mark not being registered. The consumer public would, because of the use of the said ®, with HP, be misled into believing the goods to be LC’s. (ix) GE was also dealing in its goods over its website www.hphardwares.com as well as on e-commerce platforms. The infringing goods of GE were available worldwide over the said website.

4.2 LC, in these circumstances, addressed a notice to GE on 15 July 2022, calling on the appellant to cease and desist from continuing to use the marks HP+ and HP®+. As the appellants did not desist from continuing to use the allegedly infringing marks, the respondents instituted CS (Comm) 664/2022, before the learned Commercial Court, seeking a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the appellants and all others acting on their behalf from dealing in any manner with the products bearing the marks HP, HP+, HP®+ or any other similar mark, for their products.

5. Along with the suit, the respondent filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking interim injunction, in terms of the prayers in the suit, pending its disposal.

6. The written statement, by way of response to the plaint, was filed only after the impugned order was passed. In fact, the concluding Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 paragraph of the impugned order grants time to the appellants to file the written statement.

7. Response of GE to Order XXXIX application

7.1 GE, however, filed a reply to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, filed by LC, in which it contended as under: (i) The plea of use, by LC, of the mark HP since 1995 was based on fabricated documents. The documents on which LC relied for this purpose were the audit report, income tax returns and brochure of Landmark Engineers. These documents were false and fabricated. A careful perusal of the audit report and the income tax returns did not disclose that LC was doing the business under the mark HP. The brochure was undated. As such, there was no evidence to indicate that LC was doing business under the HP mark, either itself or through its predecessors-in-interest, since 1995. (ii) Application No. 1566805, which culminated in the grant of registration to LF for the mark HP, restricted to the state of UP, was accompanied by a user affidavit which did not state, at any point, that the HP mark was earlier used by Landmark Engineers. LF was established only in 2002. Thus, if Landmark Engineers had been using the HP mark since 1995, that fact would surely have found mentioned in the user affidavit filed by LF along with Application No. 1566805. Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 (iii) The Assignment Deed dated 5 August 2013, whereby LF had assigned the mark HP to LC, stated that LF was using the mark HP since 1995. This, again, was a false statement, as LF had come into existence only in 2002. Further, under the Assignment Deed, LF assigned its rights in the HP mark, flowing from Registration No. 1566805, to LC. This registration was restricted to sale of goods in UP. LF again applied for registration of the trademark HP vide Application No. 2848372 in Class 6 on 24 November 2014. The registration granted to LF consequent on the said application was wrongly associated with the earlier Application No. 1566805. While allowing such association, the Trade Marks Registry did not include, in Registration No. 2848372, the restriction of sale in UP as was contained in Registration No. 1566805. The two applications could not have been associated, as in 2014, the HP mark registered vide Registration No. 1566805 had already been assigned to LC, whereas Application No. 2848372 was filed by LF. Associating these two marks, therefore, was not permissible in view of Section 168 of the Trade Marks Act,

1999. 8 16. Registration of trade marks as associated trade marks.— (1) Where a trade mark which is registered, or is the subject of an application for registration, in respect of any goods or services is identical with another trade mark which is registered, or is the subject of an application for registration, in the name of the same proprietor in respect of the same goods or description of goods or same services or description of services or so nearly resembles it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion if used by a person other than the proprietor, the Registrar may, at any time, require that the trade marks shall be entered on the register as associated trade marks. (2) Where there is an identity or near resemblance of marks that are registered, or are the subject of applications for registration in the name of the same proprietor, in respect of goods and in respect of services which are associated with those goods or goods of that description and with those services or services of that description, sub-section (1) shall apply as it applies as where there is an identity or near resemblance of marks that are registered, or are the subject of applications for registration, in the name of the same proprietor in respect of the same goods or description of goods or same services or description of services. Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 (iv) As Application Nos 1566805 and 2848372 had been filed by same applicants for the same mark for the same set of goods, for the same class, the restrictions and limitations which applied to Registration No. 1566805 would also apply to Registration No. 2848372 in view of Sections 40(1)9 and 4110 of the Trade

1041. (3) Where a trade mark and any part thereof are, in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (1) of Section 15, registered as separate trade marks in the name of the same proprietor, they shall be deemed to be, and shall be registered as, associated trade marks. (4) All trade marks registered in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 15 as a series in one registration shall be deemed to be, and shall be registered as, associated trade marks. (5) On application made in the prescribed manner by the registered proprietor of two or more trade marks registered as associated trade marks, the Registrar may dissolve the association as respects any of them if he is satisfied that there would be no likelihood of deception or confusion being caused if that trade mark were used by any other person in relation to any of the goods or services or both in respect of which it is registered, and may amend the register accordingly. Restriction on assignment or transmission where multiple exclusive rights would be created.— (1) Notwithstanding anything in Sections 38 and 39, a trade mark shall not be assignable or transmissible in a case in which as a result of the assignment or transmission there would in the circumstances subsist, whether under this Act or any other law, exclusive rights in more than one of the persons concerned to the use, in relation to— (a) (b) (c) each other, same goods or services; same description of goods or services; goods or services or description of goods or services which are associated with of trade marks nearly resembling each other or of identical trade mark, if having regard to the similarity of the goods and services and to the similarity of the trade marks, the use of the trade marks in exercise of those rights would be likely to deceive or cause confusion: Provided that an assignment or transmission shall not be deemed to be invalid under this sub-section if the exclusive rights subsisting as a result thereof in the persons concerned respectively are, having regard to limitations imposed thereon, such as not to be exercisable by two or more of those persons in relation to goods to be sold, or otherwise traded in, within India otherwise than for export therefrom, or in relation to goods to be exported to the same market outside India or in relation to services for use at any place in India or any place outside India in relation to services available for acceptance in India. Restriction on assignment or transmission when exclusive rights would be created in different parts of India.— Notwithstanding anything in Sections 38 and 39, a trade mark shall not be assignable or transmissible in a case in which as a result of the assignment or transmission there would in the circumstances subsist, whether under this Act or any other law— (a) an exclusive right in one of the persons concerned, to the use of the trade mark limited to use in relation to goods to be sold or otherwise traded in, in any place in India, or in relation to services for use, or services available for acceptance in any place in India; (b) an exclusive right in another of these persons concerned, to the use of a trade mark nearly resembling the first-mentioned trade mark or of an identical trade mark in relation to— the same goods or services; or (i) the same description of goods or services; or (ii) (iii) services which are associated with those goods or goods of that description or goods which are associated with those services or services of that description, limited to use in relation to goods to be sold or otherwise traded in, or services for use, or available for acceptance, in any other place in India: Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 Marks Act. The restriction of use of the mark for sale of the goods in UP would also, therefore, apply to the registration granted to LF on the basis of Application No. 2848372. (v) GE had been selling their products in their packaging since 2014. Application Nos. 4299506, 4304712 and 4304713 had been filed by LF for registration of the box in which it was selling its products as a trade mark in 2019 on “proposed to be used” basis. Thus, LF/LC was copying the artistic work and mark of GE, and not vice versa. (vi) GE is a proprietorship which was well known and reputed in the business of manufacturing and selling of self drilling screws, blind rivets and cut off wheels for metals and grinding wheels, etc. These goods were covered in Class 6 and manufactured and sold under the mark HP+. The appellants had been bona fidely using the mark HP+ since 2014. The impugned judgment

8. The learned Commercial Court has, by the impugned judgment, allowed the application of LC under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Provided that in any such case, on application in the prescribed manner by the proprietor of a trade mark who proposes to assign it, or by a person who claims that a registered trade mark has been transmitted to him or to a predecessor in title of his since the commencement of this Act, the Registrar, if he is satisfied that in all the circumstances the use of the trade mark in exercise of the said rights would not be contrary to the public interest may approve the assignment or transmission, and an assignment or transmission so approved shall not, unless it is shown that the approval was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, be deemed to be invalid under this section or Section 40 if application for the registration under Section 45 of the title of the person becoming entitled is made within six months from the date on which the approval is given or, in the case of a transmission, was made before that date. Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 the CPC. The learned Commercial Court has not returned any finding on the aspect of goodwill or reputation of LC, thereby indicating that the impugned order has been passed solely on the finding of infringement.

9. Unfortunately, the impugned order though it records the submissions of both sides, does not deal with all the submissions in their totality. The reasoning of the learned Commercial Court contained entirely in para 12 of the impugned order, which reads as under: defendant “12. Considering that the plaintiff is the registered trade mark holder and prior user of the mark HP and the material on record selling/marketing/distributing its product under the trademarks HP, HP+ and HP R+ which are similar/ deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark with likelihood to cause confusion to the public. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff and if the defendants are allowed to continue to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff, same shall cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff and the reputation of the plaintiff is likely to be damaged if the injunction is not granted in its favour.”

10. Prior to returning the above findings, the learned Commercial Court has noted the submissions of both sides. While GE contended that the restriction of sale of goods using the HP mark within the State of UP, as incorporated in Registration No. 1566805, applies equally to the subsequent Registration No. 2848372 of the HP mark, LC contended, per contra, that the restriction on sale of goods in UP was not contained in the Registration No. 2848372. LC contended that Registration No. 2848372, of the HP mark, applied on pan-India basis and, therefore, that the manufacture and sale by the appellants of self- Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 drilling screws and rivets using the HP+ and HP®+ marks anywhere in India would infringe the said registration. The marks themselves were ex facie deceptively similar to each other. LC further contended that the plea of the appellants regarding Registration No. 1566805 having been obtained on the basis of fabricated documents could not be decided at this stage and that, in any case, the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, rejecting the rectification application filed by the appellants for rectifying the said trade mark, had not been challenged.

11. Having recorded the aforesaid submissions of both sides, the learned Commercial Court proceeded, as already noted, to allow the respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Rival contentions Submissions of Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel

12. for the appellants

12.1 Mr. Sindhwani submits that Registration No. 2848372, of the mark HP, is completely illegal and invalid. According to Mr. Sindhwani, the registration violates Section 16 of the Trade Marks Act. Section 16 mandatorily requires the proprietor of the two associated trade marks to be the same. The earlier trade mark HP, covered by Registration No. 1566805, was assigned by LF to LC on 5 August 2013. Once the mark stood thus assigned, LF lost all proprietorial rights over the mark. LF could not, therefore, have again Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 applied on 24 November 2014 for registration of the same HP mark for the same goods. In the application, LF concealed the fact that it had assigned the registered trade mark HP to LC. Thus, having not been informed of the fact that the earlier registered HP trade mark already stood assigned by LF to LC on 5 August 2013, the Registrar was misled into granting a fresh registration to LF for the HP mark, against Application No. 2848372, and associating the registration with the earlier Registration No. 1566805. Registration No. 2848372 of the mark HP, in favour of LF, was, therefore, invalid, and no intellectual property rights could flow from such a registration.

12.2 The Assignment Deed dated 5 August 2013, whereby Pankaj Lidoo assigned the HP trade mark, owned by LF, to LC, also concealed the fact that Registration No. 1566805 was subject exclusive UP user.

12.3 Besides these submissions, Mr. Sindhwani has reiterated the contention, advanced before the learned Commercial Court, to the effect that the documents on which the respondent was claiming 1995 user were forged and fabricated. In any event, the said user documents, he submits, are of no relevance, as, at that time, the user of the mark HP was restricted to the state of UP, following the user- based restriction attaching to Registration No. 1566805.

12.4 Mr. Sindhwani further submits that, in the absence of any finding regarding goodwill or reputation, the impugned injunction cannot be sustained on the principles of passing off. Once the plea of Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 1995 user was found to be without substance, the earliest claim of user of the HP mark by LC, or of LF, was of 24 November 2014, whereas GE was using the HP mark since December 2014. The commencement of user of the rival marks by LF/LC and GE were, therefore, neck-to-neck.

12.5 Mr. Sindhwani further submits that, by operation of Sections 16 and 40 of the Trade Marks Act, even if it were to be presumed that Registration No. 2848372 of the HP mark in favour of LF, was valid, the restriction of use of the mark to the State of UP, which had been incorporated in the Registration No. 1566805, would also apply to the later registration following Application No. 2848372.

13. Submissions of Mr. J. Sai Deepak, by way of response

13.1 Arguing per contra on behalf of LC, Mr Sai Deepak submits that, while LC, through its predecessor-in-interest LF, was the proprietor of the registered trademark HP, the application of GE, for registration of the HP+ mark was refused by the Registry on 13 August

2025. He submits that LC is, by itself as well as through its predecessors-in-interest, users of the HP mark since 15 December 1995, whereas GE is merely a subsequent dishonest adopter of the mark HP+, claiming user since 10 December 2014. The duplicity in GE’s actions was apparent from the fact that it was using the ® superscript alongside its HP+ mark, thereby deceiving consumers into believing that its mark is registered, so that there would be an immediate connection with LC’s registered trademark HP. This Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 duplicity, he submits, is further apparent from the fact that, in its packing, GE has not only replicated the colour scheme of LC’s packing, but has gone to the extent of copying the shikara logo, with “LE” thereon, which was clearly dishonest. This element of LC’s packing, as replicated by GE, appeared as on GE’s packing.

13.2 In support of LC’s claim of user of the HP mark since 15 December 1995, Mr. Sai Deepak referred to the Rent Agreement, Dealer Agreement, Transport Receipts, Income Tax Return and Brochure of Landmark Engineers which were all part of the record of the learned Commercial Court. He also drew attention, in this context, to invoices raised by LF of sales of HP branded self-drilling screws within the state of Maharashtra dating back to 2010, and commercial import invoices, reflecting LF as the consignee, dating back to 28 September 2006. User of the HP+ mark by GE, he submits, was nearly two decades anterior, in point of time, after commencement of user of the HP mark by Landmark Engineers.

13.3 Mr. Sai Deepak submits that GE filed Applications No. 2867961, 2939701, 3004252 and 3142368, for registration of the mark HP+, claiming user of 2014, in Class 6 and that, consequent on oppositions filed by LC/LF, all four applications were abandoned by GE, with the dates of abandonment being 13 August 2025 for Application No. 2867961, 13 March 2020 for Application No. 2939701, 19 May 2020 for Application No. 3004252 and 13 March 2020 for Application No. 3142368. Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49

13.4 Mr. Sai Deepak refutes Mr. Sindhwani’s contention that Registration No. 2848372 of the HP trademark, in favour of LF, was subject to UP user. This restriction, which applied to the earlier Registration No. 1566805 of the HP mark, he submits, did not apply to the later registration.

13.5 Application No. 2867961, filed by GE for registration of the HP+ mark, submits Mr. Sai Deepak, stood refused by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai by a detailed and speaking order dated 13 August 2025. However, as this order has been passed nearly three years after the passing of the impugned order by the learned Commercial Court, we are not inclined to make reference thereto.

13.6 Apropos Mr. Sindhwani’s submission that Registration No. 2848372, of the trademark HP, had been obtained by LF by concealing, from the Registry, the fact that the earlier registered trade mark HP stood assigned by LF to LC, Mr. Sai Deepak points out that, on 24 November 2014, when Application No. 2848372 was filed before the Registry, the Assignment was not reflected in the record of the Registry of Trade Marks and that, therefore, LF had not committed any illegality in seeking association with the earlier registered trade mark.

13.7 Finally, Mr. Sai Deepak submits that Mr. Sindhwani has not, in his entire submissions, controverted the aspect of infringement, by Signature Not Verified FAO (COMM) 66/2024 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:23.12.2025 12:10:49 GE, of LC’s registered HP trade mark. Ergo, he submits, the appeal is completely bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Analysis

14. Extent of Inquiry

14.1 Many of the submissions which were advanced by learned Counsel for both sides raise issues which, at best, may be regarded as arguable, and cannot really constitute legitimate considerations at the stage of deciding an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Supreme Court has, in Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana11, held that Courts, which are dealing with applications for interlocutory injunction in intellectual property right matters, are not expected to enter into detailed analysis of the facts and evidence, and are only required to undertake a prima facie analysis of the merits of the case. Aspects which are arguable have, therefore, to be relegated to trial.

14.2 In Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v. Sudhir Bhatia12, the Supreme Court has held, in no uncertain terms, that where infringement is found prima facie to exist, injunction must follow, thus: The law on the subject “5. In cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyright, normally an is well settled.