The Delhi High Court has clarified that in a trade mark dispute between family members over a shared ancestral mark, where the core issue of exclusive ownership versus shared goodwill remains to be finally adjudicated through trial and cross-examination of untested documents, an interim injunction cannot be granted as it would unduly disrupt legitimate family business activities and the balance of convenience does not favour such disruptive relief.
Further, the Court held that no monopoly can be claimed over a common or religious expression (such as a deity’s name) forming part of a composite mark unless it has acquired a secondary distinctiveness, and conflicting marks must be compared as a whole applying the anti-dissection rule without dissecting them into component parts.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the correct test for trade mark infringement is whether, when considered in its entirety, the defendant’s mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark, applying the ‘anti-dissection rule’. Visually, phonetically, and structurally, the Impugned Marks ‘SV RAJ’ and ‘RAJNUT’ differ in their essential features, lettering, and overall presentation from the Subject Mark, and do not create an overall resemblance likely to cause confusion or deception in the mind of an average consumer exercising imperfect recollection.
Regarding the Impugned Marks ‘SV NATRAJ’ and ‘SRI NATRAJ JI’, the Bench noted that the Plaintiff is not claiming trade mark rights over the word ‘NATRAJ’, which is admittedly the name of a deity, and has no registration for the word mark ‘NATRAJ’. The Plaintiff failed to place any material on record to show that the Subject Mark comprising the Natraj device and the religious and descriptive term ‘Natraj’ has acquired a secondary meaning identifying the Plaintiff’s products on mere display of the Natraj device or invocation of the term ‘Natraj’ losing its original meaning.
On the claim of passing off, the Bench observed that the Plaintiff’s Products and the Infringing Products are largely circulated in a business-to-business environment, where purchase decisions are governed by factors such as pricing, quantity, and prior dealings. Given the considerable price difference and material differences in the quantity offered, alongside distinct overall impressions and sufficient distinguishing identifiers, no case of passing off is made out.
The Bench further observed that the present dispute is between members of the same family, each claiming a right in the Subject Mark and goodwill associated therewith. The core issue of ownership remains to be finally adjudicated, as documents relied upon by both parties, including the Affidavits, Assignment Deed, JKC Will, MLC Will, and Settlement, remain untested and unverified pending cross-examination of the relevant witnesses. Additionally, the Trade Marks Registry’s website continues to reflect the name of the proprietors as J K Chopra and Mohan Lal Chopra, casting doubt on the Plaintiff’s claim of exclusive proprietorship and demonstrating that the alleged assignment in favour of the Plaintiff does not appear to be duly recorded.
Briefly, the present suit was filed for permanently restraining the Defendants from using the Impugned Marks ‘SV NATRAJ’ / ‘SV RAJ’ / ‘RAJNUT’ / ‘SRI NATRAJ JI’, allegedly infringing the Subject Mark, Device of ‘NATRAJ GOD’ along with the words ‘NATRAJ BRAND’, registered on Dec 25, 1978 under Class 30 for saffron and silver foil used in confectionary. The Subject Mark was first adopted and put to use in 1956 by the partnership firm M/s Raja Traders, consisting of Jagdaman Kumar Chopra (J K Chopra) and his father Mohan Lal Chopra.
Following Mohan Lal Chopra’s death on May 14, 1980, the Plaintiff claims that M/s Raja Traders was dissolved and J K Chopra continued the business as a sole proprietor for the next 46 years. The Plaintiff, Varun Chopra, is the grandson of J K Chopra, while the Defendants include Shyam Sunder Chopra (son of J K Chopra) and his descendants, representing a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and associated entities. The Plaintiff asserts exclusive ownership over the Subject Mark based on an Assignment Deed, executed by J K Chopra in his favour, a Will dated Nov 25, 2021 (JKC Will), and Affidavits filed with the Trade Marks Registry by Shyam Sunder Chopra and Vinod Kumar Chopra allegedly relinquishing their rights.
The Defendants contested the exclusive ownership, asserting that the business devolved as a joint family partnership concern upon the grandsons of Mohan Lal Chopra pursuant to his Will dated April 11, 1971 (MLC Will). The Defendants further rely on a mutual family settlement dated May 31, 2019, which delineated product-wise use of the ‘NATRAJ’ brand among family members without relinquishing proprietary rights. Prior to the present suit, the Plaintiff and J K Chopra had instituted a suit in Bengaluru, which faced repeated orders for return of the plaint due to lack of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup, along with Advocates Puneet Yadav, Sourabh Gupta, Akshansh Gupta, Gurjas Varul, Vasudev and Priya Mittal, for the Plaintiffs
Senior Advocate Ankit Jain, along with Advocates Devesh Pratap Singh, Abhishek Kumar, Imtiaj, Aditya, Divya Prakash Arya, Ramadeep, Parth Gautam and Eish Kesarwani, for the Defendants
