While refusing interim injunctive relief in a trademark dispute concerning the “KALASH” brand for edible oils, the Rohini District Court of Delhi has asserted that a plaintiff seeking interim protection in a passing off and trademark dispute must first show a prima facie enforceable right, and such right cannot be derived through a predecessor who, on the record before the Court, had no surviving personal proprietary interest capable of assignment. Where the documentary chain of title, prior commercial treatment and surrounding conduct prima facie support the defendant’s ownership and prior user claim, interim injunction ought not to be granted against such defendant.
The Court affirmed that mere lapse of a registration or a period of non-use does not, by itself, establish abandonment of a trademark. Intention to abandon remains central, and where the proprietor continues to assert rights through legal, statutory or commercial means, especially in the context of insolvency or comparable special circumstances, abandonment cannot be readily inferred at the interlocutory stage. The Court also emphasised that a party who has taken one stand before the Trade Marks Registry and an inconsistent stand before the civil court, or who suppresses material facts relevant to title and use, is disentitled to the equitable relief of injunction.
The matter was therefore directed to be renotified for arguments on pending applications, framing of issues and case management hearing on Oct 09, 2026, with liberty to both sides to submit proposed issues after exchanging copies.
The District Judge Vinod Yadav observed that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie enforceable right in the “KALASH” trademark. It found that the entire case of the plaintiff was founded on the assertion that Gopal Das Garg had personal and independent ownership in the mark, but no document had been produced to show prior independent proprietary rights or personal use by him. The Bench observed that even if he had originally adopted the mark, any such rights stood vested in M/s Gopal Industries as partnership property once the mark was used and the first trademark application was filed in the firm’s name.
The Bench further observed that Gopal Das Garg had never asserted personal ownership over “KALASH” for nearly five decades and only moved in that direction after the e-auction notice in the insolvency process. It treated this timing as significant and found that the plaintiff’s claim was recent, opportunistic and inconsistent with the historical treatment of the mark. On title, the Bench prima facie accepted defendant No.1’s chain of ownership. It observed that the first trademark application No. 305567 was filed by M/s Gopal Industries, that the mark was assigned to M/s K.S. Enterprises by deed dated Aug 13, 1986, and thereafter to K.S. Oils Limited by deed dated July 26, 1996, both along with goodwill and without restrictions or limitations, and both assignments were duly recorded by the Trade Marks Registry.
The Bench also noted other surrounding material supporting defendant No.1’s rights, including the existence of a registered Class 31 word mark “KALASH”, copyright registration in the label, earlier judicial recognition of “KALASH” as a well-known trademark, a licence deed dated May 15, 2013 in favour of S.L. Consumer Products Limited, and the treatment of the trademark and related IP as part of the liquidation estate and going-concern sale approved by the NCLT.
On the plaintiff’s abandonment argument, the Bench rejected the submission that lapse of registration or non-use automatically extinguished defendant No.1’s rights. It held that abandonment involves intention to relinquish rights and is ordinarily to be examined in rectification proceedings under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bench accepted that defendant No.1 had continued to assert rights through restoration proceedings, insolvency-related steps, annual reports, enforcement actions and other legal processes, and therefore no intention to abandon could be inferred at this stage.
Substantially, the Bench found that Gopal Das Garg had relied upon the 1986 and 1996 assignment deeds in his own trademark application before the Trade Marks Registry, but later took a contradictory stand by challenging those very deeds and executing the assignment in favour of the plaintiff. The Bench treated this as approbation and reprobation, and held that such inconsistent stands militated against the grant of equitable interim relief. The Bench also recorded suppression of material facts by the plaintiff, including non-disclosure of defendant No.1’s Class 31 registration, copyright application, licence agreement and other relevant material. It held that such concealment independently disentitled the plaintiff from seeking interim equitable relief.
The Bench additionally accepted, prima facie, that S.L. Consumer Products Limited had been a licensee of defendant No.1 under the licence deed dated May 15, 2013 and that use by the licensee could not later mature into an ownership claim adverse to the licensor. It expressly invoked the proposition that “once a licensee, always a licensee.” On the threefold interim injunction test, the Bench concluded that the plaintiff had failed on all counts. It found no prima facie case, no balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour, and no irreparable injury warranting restraint against defendant No.1, while observing that restraining defendant No.1 would prejudice the prima facie lawful proprietor of a long-standing mark.
Also Read Judicial Officer Allegedly Duped of ₹52.81 Lakh Through Tinder Honey Trap; Delhi Court Rejects Bail
Briefly, Shivang Edibles Oils Limited instituted a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against K.S. Oils Limited and another party in relation to the “KALASH” trademark used for edible oils. The plaintiff claimed that it had become the lawful proprietor of the “KALASH” word mark and related labels, trade dress and goodwill by virtue of a Deed of Assignment dated Jan 01, 2026 executed by Gopal Das Garg, who was alleged to be the original adopter and owner of the mark. The plaintiff further asserted that Gopal Das Garg had conceived and adopted the mark in the 1973–74 period and that the plaintiff had been using the mark continuously since Aug 11, 2017, initially under his authority and thereafter as assignee.
The plaintiff’s case was that the earlier assignment deeds dated 1986 and 1996, relied upon by K.S. Oils Limited, were limited only to the first “KALASH” label under Trade Mark Application No. 305567 and did not transfer the “KALASH” word mark per se, later labels, trade dress, copyright or underlying goodwill. It also alleged that the 1986 assignment was void because it purportedly bore the execution of Katori Devi, who had died in 1977. The plaintiff additionally contended that defendant No.1 had abandoned the mark, had no subsisting goodwill, and had only recently re-entered the market in a manner intended to disrupt the plaintiff’s established trade channels.
K.S. Oils Limited opposed the injunction and claimed to be the actual proprietor and prior user of the “KALASH” trademark through a continuous chain of title beginning with M/s Gopal Industries, followed by assignment to M/s K.S. Enterprises in 1986 and thereafter to K.S. Oils Limited in 1996, both with goodwill and without limitation. It also relied on prior commercial use, annual reports, licensing arrangements, copyright registration, a Class 31 registration, and the inclusion of the brand in the company’s insolvency and going-concern sale process.
