The Delhi High Court has set aside an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining use of the ‘KALASH’ trademark, holding that the Trial Court failed to adequately consider competing proprietary claims before granting relief without hearing the defendant. The Court observed
“In the facts of the present case, as noted hereinabove, this was a fit case where notice ought to have been issued to the Appellant/defendant prior to grant of any interim relief, particularly in view of the competing claims of proprietorship and the Appellant’s prior and extensive use of the impugned marks.”
The dispute arose from rival claims over the ‘KALASH’ mark and associated labels used in relation to edible oils. While the plaintiff asserted rights based on alleged continuous use and a recent assignment, the appellant relied on earlier assignment deeds, trademark registrations, and long-standing use to claim ownership and goodwill in the mark.
The Trial Court had granted an ex parte injunction restraining the appellant from using the mark. However, the High Court found that the Trial Court’s prima facie findings were unsustainable as it failed to consider material evidence placed on record by the appellant. Crucially, documents evidencing prior assignments from 1986 and 1996, pending trademark applications, subsisting registrations, and copyright protections were either ignored or not adequately analysed.
The Court emphasised that the appellant had demonstrated a documented chain of title and prior use dating back decades, which required serious consideration before any interim restraint could be imposed. It also noted that the respondent’s claim of goodwill since 2017 could not be assessed in isolation without examining the appellant’s earlier and continuous use.
The Court noted that the lapse of trademark registration during CIRP did not by itself affect the appellant’s underlying proprietary rights, particularly when the mark continued to be reflected as a corporate asset and subject to revival proceedings.
The Court further observed that the Trial Court failed to examine relevant surrounding circumstances, including the appellant’s recommencement of business in October 2025 and the respondent’s delay in approaching the Court. These factors were material to assessing the balance of convenience and urgency.
On the issue of ex parte relief, the Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that such injunctions are reserved for exceptional situations, such as clear cases of counterfeiting or absence of any credible defence. In the present case, both parties traced their claims to a common source and raised substantial disputes on proprietorship, making it inappropriate to grant relief without notice.
Setting aside the impugned order, the Court directed the Trial Court to decide the injunction application independently, without being influenced by any observations made in the present order, and to do so expeditiously after completion of pleadings.
Accordingly, the ex parte interim order was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties left open.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Yatin Chadha, Mr. Mayank Chadha, Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Ms. Shreya Sethi, Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Mr. Kaulik Mitra, Ms. Dolly Luthra, Ms. Aashna Singh, Ms. Sanskriti Rastogi, Ms. Gaurika Chawla and Mr. R. Abhishek, Advs.
Respondents- Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Arjun Mahajan, Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, Mr. Shreyas Maheshwari, Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Raghvendra N. Budholia, Mr. Sagar Agarwal, Mr. Piyush Gautam, Mr. Harshit Kapoor, Mr. Manav Singh, Mr. Siddhant Bajaj, Mr. Aryan Verma and Ms. Bhavya Arora, Advs
