MS ANURADHA SHARMA & ANR. v. JIVA AYURVEDIC PHARMACY LIMITED & ORS.

Judgment

#1. This appeal is filed against order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts in CS (Comm) 554/2023. In the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court disposed of the Respondents9 application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081. The application was filed by the Respondents, as Plaintiffs in the suit, seeking an injunction to restrain the Appellants from using the mark <SHATAM JEEVA= and its associated symbols, which are registered Signature Not Verified 1<CPC= hereinafter FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 and in use by the Appellants, i.e., < = (Appellants9 registered mark) and < = (Appellants9 mark in use).

#2. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court granted the relief as sought by the Plaintiffs. It issued an injunction restraining the Appellants, along with all others acting on their behalf from using the mark <SHATAM JEEVA=2 or any other trademark that is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs9 registered trademarks, namely <JIVA=. Furthermore, the Appellants have been restrained from engaging in any act that may amount to infringement, passing off, or unfair competition in relation to the Plaintiff9s trademarks.

#3. For the sake of convenience and consistency, the parties herein will be referred to in the same manner as in the original suit. Accordingly, the Appellants will be referred to as the 8Defendants9, and the Respondents will be referred to as the 8Plaintiffs9 in this appeal. Case of the Plaintiffs as per the Plaint

#4. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and Plaintiff No. 2 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act,1860, which purportedly owns the <JIVA= Signature Not Verified 2 Alternatively referred to as <impugned mark= FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 trademarks. Plaintiff No. 3 is a Director of Plaintiff No. 1 and the President of Plaintiff No. 2.

#5. The Plaintiffs and their associated entities form part of the 8JIVA Group9, which was founded by Plaintiff No. 3, Sh. Rishi Pal Chauhan.

#6. The Plaintiffs claim that they have been using the <JIVA= mark since 1992, in respect of a wide range of Ayurvedic products and services. They assert that <JIVA= was intentionally adopted as the common trademark and trade name across all their associated entities, thereby forming the <JIVA GROUP.= Due to consistent, continuous, and widespread use since 1992, the trade name and trademark <JIVA= has acquired significant goodwill. Additionally, the Plaintiffs state that they have created a distinguished presence in the Ayurvedic, health, wellness, and beauty industries.

The Plaintiffs aver that they have adopted the trademark <JIVA=, with the prominent element being <Jiva= and other elements, including the Lotus/flower symbol.

#8. The Plaintiffs state in the plaint that they have obtained registrations in various classes for the <JIVA= trademark, the details of which are reproduced below: S. Trademark Class Proprietor Date No. Registration Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13

#3. 16 Plaintiff No. 3

18.02.2002 User since –

01.06.1994 3 Plaintiff No. 1

03.12.2012 User since –

01.01.1992 (Device) (1096505) (Device) (2436446) 5, 35, 39, 41, 42, 45 Plaintiff No. 2

01.11.2017 (Device) (4085257) Proposed be used.

#4. Jiva Vedic 41, 44 Plaintiff No. 1

01.11.2017 Psychology (Word) (3667226) (Device) (4903000)

#6. (Device) (4935494) Proposed be used. 41 Plaintiff No. 1

13.03.2021 User since –

01.01.1992 44 Plaintiff No. 1

06.04.2021 User since –

01.11.2018 Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13

#7. JIVANANDA 41 Plaintiff No. 1

19.04.2021 (Word) (4950207) User since –

30.05.2009

#9. Additionally, the Plaintiffs claim to have international trademark registrations in countries such as Japan, Lithuania, Poland and other European Union nations, as stated in paragraph 20 of the plaint.

#10. The Plaintiffs further state that the Jiva Group owns and operates various active websites and online platforms, including a Facebook page, YouTube channel and other domain names, the same are as follows: (i) www.jiva.org (registered on 28.04.1995) (ii) www.jiva.com (registered on 16.04.1998) (iii) www.jivaayurveda.com (registered on 26.08.2003) (iv) www.jivapublicschool.com (registered on 23.06.2008) (v) www.jivajobs.com (registered on 09.07.2013)

#11. According to the Plaintiffs, their advertising and marketing expenditure has exceeded Rs. 11 crores since the year 2015–16, and that for the financial year 2021–22 alone, it stood at Rs. 12,85,24,966/-. Furthermore, their annual sales from the year 2015–16 to 2020–21 ranged between Rs. 67 crores and Rs. 93 crores, with sales of Rs. 69,20,82,773/- in the year 2020–21. Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13

#12. The Plaintiffs state that the cause of action arose in April of 2022, when a client approached them enquiring about a wellness retreat named 8Shatam Jeeva9, which was not affiliated with the Plaintiffs. This led the Plaintiffs to discover that the Defendants had adopted the name <SHATAM JEEVA= for operating their wellness retreat and were also using the domain name www.shatamjeeva.com. Upon scrutiny, the Plaintiffs found that the Defendants had registered a device mark < = under Class 5 in 2018, which the Plaintiffs9 claim is visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the Plaintiffs9 registered marks.

#13. Thereafter, aggrieved by the Defendant9s adoption of the impugned mark, the Plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the Defendants via email on 25.04.2022. In their response dated 28.04.2022, the Defendants denied any similarity between their marks and that of the Plaintiffs.

#14. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from directly or indirectly dealing in goods bearing the impugned marks, on the ground of trademark and copyright infringement as well as passing off. Additionally, the Plaintiffs preferred an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the impugned marks during the pendency of the suit. Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 Case of the Defendants as per the Written Statement

#15. It was averred by the Defendants that Defendant No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the trademark < = (Registered Trademark No. 3969212), which was registered in 2018 and later assigned to Defendant No. 2. In addition, the Defendants are using the mark < = (Shatam Jeeva By Baidyanath) along with the domain name <https://shatamjeeva.life=.

#16. The Defendants stated that to commemorate 100 years of their family brand, <Baidyanath=, which is allegedly a well-known and one of the oldest brands manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines and products, they conceptualised the idea of a wellness retreat. In furtherance of this, applied registration < = in 2018 under Class 5.

#17. The Defendants launched the 8Shatam Jeeva9 retreat in 2021 in Jhansi, on the land owned by Defendant No. 2.

#18. The Defendants further claim that the mark <SHATAM JEEVA= is derived from the ancient notion of longevity and well- being and is mentioned in the Vedas and other religious texts. The Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 Defendants assert that the mark should be viewed as a whole, rather than splitting the individual components for comparison. Moreover, the use of the disclaimer <by Baidyanath= is said to be a distinguishing factor between the Plaintiffs9 and the Defendants9 marks. Hence, the Defendants argue that there is no deceptive similarity between the rival marks.

#19. The Defendants also claim that their adoption of the impugned mark was honest and that their use predates the Plaintiffs9. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs are relatively new in the market, with Plaintiff No. 2 starting in 1992 and Plaintiff No. 1 being incorporated in 2005. It is further asserted that the Plaintiffs themselves purchased Ayurvedic medicines from the <Baidyanath= and <Sharmayu= entities (another family group of the Defendants), which undermines their claim to exclusive rights over the mark.

#20. The Defendants argue that 8Jiva9 or 8Jeeva9 is a common Sanskrit word, widely used in trade by third parties, and point out that 8Jiva Auroville9 is another wellness retreat that operates under a similar name, which, according to the Defendants, has been deliberately concealed by the Plaintiffs.

#21. The Defendants also allege that the Plaintiffs have acquiesced to the use of the mark by the Defendants. They claim that despite the Plaintiffs9 knowledge of the use of the <Baidyanath= and <Sharmayu= marks, the Plaintiffs failed to take any action to seek the cancellation of the impugned mark, thereby tacitly consenting to its use. Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13

#22. The Defendants rely on Section 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, asserting that since both rival marks are registered, the Plaintiffs cannot claim exclusivity over the mark, i.e., they contend that no infringement can be established if both marks are registered under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Impugned Order

#23. The learned Commercial Court made the following findings: (i) The Defendants cannot claim that 8Jiva9 is a common word, as they themselves sought registration for the same mark. (ii) The contention of honest adoption by the Defendants was rejected. The Court opined that the Defendants were aware of Plaintiff9s mark prior to 2017-18, based on the Defendants9 own admission that the Plaintiffs had purchased their products. Further, since both parties operate in the same industry, the Defendants should have been aware of the Plaintiff9s prior registered mark. The Court supported this finding by referencing the availability of news articles about the Plaintiffs9 mark on a Google search, which dated back to 2020. (iii) The Court applied the standard laid down in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Staya Deo Gupta3 and observed that both parties in Ayurvedic medicines; considering the general impressions or phonetic recollection of the marks, an ordinary 3 (1963) 2 SCR 484: AIR 1963 SC 449 Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 person of average intelligence may be deceived into believing that the marks are related. The Court further opined that such a person may not notice the subtle differences in the logos, the Plaintiffs9 logo featuring a lotus and the Defendants9 logo incorporating the letter 8S9 along with herbs. To substantiate this, the Court noted that confusion was evident in April 2022, when a client of the Plaintiffs9 approached them to inquire about their association with the Defendants9 wellness retreat. (iv) The Court held that the Plaintiffs are the prior users of the mark 8Jiva9. The Plaintiffs were already operating a wellness retreat under this mark before the Defendants began using it. (v) The Court held that, prima facie, it did not appear that the Defendants honestly adopted the impugned mark. Additionally, the balance of convenience tilted in favour of the Plaintiffs. (vi) As a result, the Court issued an injunction against the Defendants, restraining them from dealing in the impugned mark or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs9 registered mark 8Jiva9. The Defendants were also restrained from engaging in any activity that may amount to infringement, passing off or unfair competition. Rival Submissions before this Court

#24. Mr. Suhail Dutt, learned Senior Counsel for Appellants/Defendants, vehemently opposed the impugned order, Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 contending that it is untenable in law. He argued that the order wrongly assumes that the Plaintiffs hold exclusive rights over the mark 8Jiva9, which has been registered by them. According to Mr. Dutt, the Defendants adopted the mark <Shatam Jeeva= to celebrate the centenary of the 8Baidyanath9 brand. He explained that the term 8Shatam9 means 8one hundred9, and 8Jeeva9 means 8live9, thus signifying the concept of a healthy life for a hundred years. Mr. Dutt further submitted that the impugned order failed to consider that both the Plaintiffs9 and the Defendants9 marks were registered, and therefore, no action infringement could lie under such circumstances.

#25. Mr. Dutt contended that the learned Commercial Court ought to have adhered to the anti-dissection rule, as established in decisions such as Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani & Anr.4 and South India Beverages v. General Mills5. He emphasized that the impugned mark should be viewed in its entirety and not split for comparison. Upon such a holistic comparison, he contended that the rival marks were completely distinct and that there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers. It was submitted that the marks were neither phonetically nor visually similar, and that the use of the disclaimer <By Baidyanath= created further distinction. He highlighted that 8Baidyanath9 has carried immense goodwill and reputation for over a century. 4 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370 52014 SCC OnLine Del 1953 Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13

#26. It was further submitted that since 8Jiva9 is a common Sanskrit word, the Plaintiffs were required to establish that the mark had acquired secondary meaning, which they failed to do. Mr. Dutt pointed out that the Plaintiffs did not possess a registration for the word 8Jiva9 itself and had also not applied for one. Moreover, the Plaintiffs had not sought cancellation of the impugned mark, thereby undermining their claim.

#27. It was also urged by Mr. Dutt that the Defendants9 wellness retreat caters to a different consumer segment, given that it is positioned at a higher price point as compared to the Plaintiffs9 offerings.

#28. Mr. Dutt further highlighted that there were several other entities using the name 8Jiva9 for their business, including wellness centres and hotels. He pointed out the existence of another wellness retreat called 8Jiva Auroville9, arguing that the Plaintiffs could not claim exclusivity over the word 8Jiva9, especially since there were no such exclusive rights granted in the Plaintiffs9 trademark registration. In support of this argument, reliance was placed on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which grants exclusive rights to the registered proprietor of a mark, to contend that the Plaintiffs could not claim exclusivity over 8Jiva9 given that they had not registered the mark.

#29. Mr. Dutt vehemently contended that since the impugned mark is registered, the Plaintiffs could not claim infringement under Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He relied on the Signature Not Verified FAO(COMM) 334/2025 Signed By:ANUBHAV TRIPATHI Signing Date:21.04.2026 18:59:13 rulings in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Soluchana Bai6 and Vaidya Rishi India Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Suresh Dutt Parashar & Ors.7 to argue that infringement could not be made out when both marks are registered. Additionally, Mr. Dutt contended that, upon comparison, the rival marks were not similar in any respect, and therefore, no claim for passing off could be established. He referred to Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate (P) Ltd. v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana8, to contend that the Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate any misrepresentation, loss, likelihood of loss, or confusion. Mr. Dutt emphasized that the learned Commercial Court failed to find that the Plaintiffs had goodwill and reputation, which is essential for establishing a passing off claim. He further relied on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act to argue that once a composite mark is registered, the proprietor obtains protection over the entire mark as a whole, and not over the individual components.

#30. Per contra, Mr. Virender Goswami, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Plaintiffs, ardently supported the impugned order. He submitted that the Plaintiffs have been extensively and continuously using the 8Jiva9 trademarks and house mark since 1992 and, as a result, have acquired distinctiveness both in India and abroad.

#31. Mr. Goswami argued that <Jiva= is the dominant part of the Plaintiffs9 mark. If this element were removed, only the lotus flower remained. He argued that <Jiva= serves as the common denominator across various trademarks and Classes, constituting the Plaintiffs9