Delhi High Court
Jangeer Singh Trading As Jangeer Singh … vs Yogesh Jangid Trading As Jangid Agro … on 11 March, 2025
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 24.02.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 11.03.2025
+ CS(COMM) 598/2022 & I.A. 13953/2022, I.A. 121/2023
JANGEER SINGH TRADING AS JANGEER
SINGH KABULSHAH AGRICULTURE WORKS .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Vikas Khera, Mr. Rohit and
Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocates
versus
YOGESH JANGID TRADING AS JANGID
AGRO ENGINEERING & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Raghav Nagar, Mr. Rishab
Nagar and Mr. Avinash Sharma,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
AMIT BANSAL, J.
I.A. 13953/2022 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC )
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the application filed on
behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking grant of interim injunction against the
defendant.
2. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction
restraining the defendant from infringement and passing off the plaintiff’s
trademark, rendition of accounts, damages and other ancillary reliefs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 1 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
Proceedings in the suit
3. Summons in the suit and notice in the application was issued on 31 st
August, 2022. However, no ad interim injunction order was passed in favour
of the plaintiff.
4. In the Order dated 27th September, 2022, the statement of the
defendant’s counsel was recorded to the effect that the defendant is neither
using nor intending to use the mark ‘JANGEER/JANGIR’.
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various dates and pleadings were
completed in the suit as well as in the present application. The application was
heard on 9th January, 2025, 20th January 2025, 18th February, 2025 and 24th
February, 2025, when the judgment was reserved.
Case set up in the plaint
6. The plaintiff is a sole proprietorship firm of Mr. Jangeer Singh. The
plaintiff is engaged inter alia in the business of marketing, manufacturing and
selling agricultural implements.
7. The plaintiff honestly conceived and adopted the trademark
‘JANGEER’ on 1st January, 1984 and since then, the plaintiff has been using
the said trademark continuously.
8. The plaintiff also maintains a website with the domain name
‘www.jangeer.com’ which gives details about the plaintiff’s products. The
plaintiff’s products sold under the aforesaid trade mark are also available on
leading third party e-commerce portals such as ‘www.tradeindia.com’,
‘www.indiamart.com’, ‘www.exportersindia.com’, and the like.
9. The plaintiff has obtained a registration for the device mark
‘JANGEER’ in class 7. The aforesaid registration is w.e.f. 13th September,
2013 with a user claim of 1st January, 1984. The plaintiff’s application for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 2 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
registration for the mark ‘JANGEER’ in class 35 is pending.
10. The plaintiff has given his sales turnover as well as promotional
expenses from the financial year 2004-2005 till the financial year 2021-22 in
paragraph 4 of the plaint. The sales turnover for the financial year 2021-22
was to the tune of ₹ 32,73,42,328 and the promotional expenses were to the
tune of ₹ 13,02,909.
11. It is stated that the defendant also deals in the business of
manufacturing and trading of identical goods as the plaintiff, i.e. agricultural
implements under the trademark ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’.
12. The defendant has obtained registrations of device marks bearing the
name ‘JANGID’ in classes 7 and 35. The defendant has also applied for
various other registrations in classes 7 and 35 for the word/device mark
‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’ which are pending or have been refused.
13. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff.
Case set up by the defendant in the Written Statement
14. The defendant’s family adopted their surname, ‘JANGID’ as a mark in
1980 and since then they have been using the aforesaid mark honestly and in
a continuous manner. The defendant’s father, Sh. Bhomaram Jangid started
using the Hindi and English versions of his surname ‘JANGID’ with respect
to his business concern ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’, dealing in
agricultural implements.
15. In support of its user of the aforesaid mark, the defendant has placed on
record documents such as Small-Scale Industrial (SSI) Unit certificates,
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification, Declaration Form under
Central Sales Tax, demand notes and electricity bills issued in the name of
‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 3 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
16. In the year 2011, the defendant set up his business in the name of
‘Jangid Agro Engineering’. Documents in support thereof have been filed
along with the written statement.
17. The defendant has given his sales turnover as well as promotional
expenses from the financial year 2011-2012 till the financial year 2021-22 in
paragraph 20 of the written statement. The sales turnover of the defendant for
the financial year 2021-22 was to the tune of ₹ 5,84,82,947 and the
promotional expenses were to the tune of ₹ 2,02,710.
Plaintiff’s Submissions
18. The defendant is using the trademarks ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’,
which are deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘JANGEER’ in
relation to identical goods and products, i.e. agricultural implements.
19. Even though, in its trademark applications, the defendant has claimed
user from 2011, no invoices in support thereof have been filed. Further, no
invoices have been filed in respect of the defendant’s father’s business.
20. The defendant has failed to prove use of the impugned mark prior to
the plaintiff’s registration on 13th September, 2013.
21. The defendants have filed multiple applications seeking registration of
the word/device mark ‘JANGIR’, none of which have been granted.
22. Even if the mark ‘JANGID’ is a part of defendant’s name, the defendant
cannot use the same as it is causing confusion in the market. Reliance in this
regard is placed on Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra &
Mahindra Ltd, (2002) 2 SCC 147 and Montari Overseas Ltd. v. Montari
Industries Ltd. 1995 SCC OnLine Del 685.
23. The use by the defendant of the ‘JANGIR’ mark is not bona fide as the
defendant knew about the plaintiff’s mark ‘JANGEER’, as the plaintiff’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 4 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
mark was cited in the trademark application filed by the defendant on 16 th
December, 2019.
Defendants Submissions
24. In view of the fact that both plaintiff and the defendant are proprietors
of registered trademarks, no case of infringement can be made out.
25. In terms of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘Trade
Marks Act‘) defendants are using their name in a bona fide manner and
therefore, plaintiff cannot interfere with the same. The user of the defendant
is prior to that of the plaintiff. Reliance in this regard is placed on the
judgments in Precious jewels v. Varun Gems (2015) 1 SCC 160 and Jindal
Industries Private Limited Vs. Suncity Sheets Private Limited and Anr,
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1634.
26. A comparison of the marks used by the plaintiff and the defendant
would show that they are quite different. The added material on the
defendant’s mark distinguishes the same from the plaintiff’s mark so no case
of passing off can be made out.
Rejoinder submissions on behalf of the plaintiff
27. The defendant cannot take advantage of his father’s business as the
entity of the defendant is separate and independent from his father’s entity.
28. Even though the defendant has obtained registration of the device mark
” “, it has been using it as a word mark ‘JANGID’.
29. The various documents filed on behalf of the defendant are not enough
to establish the prior use.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 5 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
Analysis and findings
30. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
31. It is an undisputed position obtaining in the present case that both the
plaintiff and the defendant have ‘JANGEER’/’JANGID’ as a part of their
respective names and both are using the same as a mark for their respective
businesses. The name of the plaintiff is Jangeer Singh, trading as ‘Jangeer
Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works’ whereas the name of the defendant is
Yogesh Jangid trading as ‘Jangid Agro Engineering’.
32. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendant have obtained registrations
in respect of device marks, details of which are given below:-
Plaintiff’s Trademark
Trademark Application User date Class
date
JANGEER (device 13.09.2013 01.01.1984 7
mark)Defendant’s trademarks
Trademark Application User date Class
date
20.10.2016 10.01.2011 720.10.2016 10.01.2011 35
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 6 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
33. Since both the plaintiff and the defendant are registered proprietors of
similar marks, in view of Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade
Marks Act, in my prima facie view, an action for infringement would not be
maintainable. However, since the plaintiff has filed the present case for
infringement as well as passing off, the case of the plaintiff, at the stage of
grant of interim injunction, can be considered in the context of the relief of
passing off.
34. In S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai (2016) 2 SCC 683, it was
also held that the three elements which are necessary to make out a case of
passing off are goodwill and reputation attained by the plaintiff,
misrepresentation by the defendant and the damage caused to the plaintiff’s
goodwill and reputation by the acts of the defendant.
35. Therefore, the present case has to be examined in light of the aforesaid
principles to determine if the defendant has passed off its goods as those of
the plaintiff.
36. At this stage, reference may be made to Section 35 of the Trade Marks
Act which is set out below:-
“35. Saving for use of name, address or description of goods or
services.–
Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user
of a registered trade mark to interfere with any bona fide use by a
person of his own name or that of his place of business, or of the
name, or of the name of the place of business, of any of his
predecessors in business, or the use by any person of any bona fide
description of the character or quality of his goods or services.”
[emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 7 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
37. Section 35 starts with a non obstante clause, which implies that its
provisions would prevail over any other provisions of the Trade Marks Act.
There is nothing to suggest in the language of Section 35, that it would be
applicable only in cases of infringement and not passing off. In my view, the
benefit of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act would be available to a
defendant, both in cases involving infringement and passing off.
38. The language of Section 35 also makes it clear that a person is free to
use his own name or the name of any of his predecessors in business as a
trademark, so long as such use is a bona fide use.
39. In Precious jewels v. Varun Gems (2015) 1 SCC 160, the Supreme
Court relying upon the provisions of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act
vacated the injunction order restraining the defendant from using the surname
‘RAKYAN’ in respect of their jewellery shop. The Supreme Court noted that
‘RAKYAN’ was the surname of the partners of the plaintiff and the defendant
firm and therefore, the defendant cannot be restrained from using their
common surname in a bona fide manner for the purposes of their business.
The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment are set
out below:
“9. As stated hereinabove, Section 35 of the Act permits anyone
to do his business in his own name in a bona fide manner. In the
instant case, it is not in dispute that the defendants are doing
their business in their own name and their bona fides have not
been disputed. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff and
defendants are related to each other and practically all the
family members are in the business of jewellery. We have
perused the hoardings of the shops where they are doing the
business and upon perusal of the hoardings we do not find any
similarity between them.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 8 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
40. The aforesaid judgment was followed by me in Vasundhra Jewellers
Pvt. Ltd v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewelery LLP and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 4185. In the said case, the plaintiff was engaged in the jewellery business
in the name of ‘Vasundhra Jewellers’. The defendant, whose name was
‘Vasundhara Mantri’, was also engaged in the jewellery business in the name
of ‘Vasundhara’. It was held that the defendant was using her name as a
trademark in a bona fide manner and was therefore entitled to protection under
Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. An appeal has been filed against the
aforesaid judgment which is pending before the Division Bench. However, no
stay has been granted.
41. In Jindal Industries v. Suncity Sheets, (supra) the defendant no.2
therein, R.N. Jindal, was using her name as a mark for the purposes of her
business. The Coordinate Bench of this Court denied interim injunction,
holding that the defendant no.2 therein would be entitled to the defence under
Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. The Coordinate Bench also went on to
hold that a party cannot monopolize common names or surnames, as a
trademark. The relevant observations contained in paragraph 34 of the said
judgment are set out below:
“34. Indeed, one who obtains registration of a common name,
or surname, like JINDAL, as a trade mark in his favour, does
so with all the risks that such registration entails. It is open to
anyone, and everyone, to use his name on his goods, and,
therefore, the possibility of there being several JINDAL’s
looms large. The plaintiff cannot, by obtaining registration for
JINDAL as a word mark, monopolize the use of JINDAL even
as a part – and not a very significant one at that – of any and
every mark, even in the context of steel, or SS pipes and tubes.
The Trade Marks Act, and the privileges it confers, cannot be
extended to the point where one can monopolize the use of aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 9 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
common name for goods, and, by registering it, foreclose the
rest of humanity from using it.”
42. The facts of the present case have to be examined in light of the
aforesaid legal position.
43. The defendant has placed on record the following documents to
demonstrate that his father has been carrying out business in the name of
‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’ since 1980:-
i. Registration certificate as a Small Scale Industrial Unit on 23 rd
June, 1984. (page 95 of the defendant’s documents) which provides that
the date of commencement of business of the entity was 18 th
March,1980.
ii. License in respect of power threshers issued by the Bureau of
Indian Standards dated 16th February, 1991 (page 99-100 of the
defendant’s documents)
iii. Purchase invoice issued in the name of ‘Jangid Krishi
Engineering Works’ dated 26th June, 1991 (page 115 of defendants’
documents)
iv. Declaration Form under Central Sales Tax dated 14th September,
1998.
44. For the purposes of forming a prima facie view, all the aforesaid
documents show that defendant’s father was running a business in the name
of ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’ at least since 1984.
45. The defendant has also placed on record an Udyam Registration
Certificate dated 21st September, 2020 (page 163 of defendant’s documents)
evidencing the fact that the defendant commenced its business in the name of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 10 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
‘Jangid Agro Engineering’ w.e.f., 14th April, 2011, operating from the
premises of ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’, the enterprise run by his
father.
46. Along with its trademark application, the defendant had also filed
certain invoices starting from 30th May, 2012 to show that it has been doing
business in the name of ‘Jangid Agro Engineering’ at least from the year 2012.
The aforesaid invoices, which were filed along with the trademark application
by the defendant before the Trade Marks Registry, have been placed on record
by the plaintiff. (page 129-138 of the plaintiff’s documents)
47. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills v. Mahindra & Mahindra,
(supra) where the Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court
granting interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff therein, Mahindra and
Mahindra. The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiff had been doing
business in the name ‘Mahindra and Mahindra’, for over five decades, and
the defendant had yet to commence its business in the name of ‘Mahendra
and Mahendra’. This judgment would not be applicable in the present case
since the defendant and his predecessor (father) have been doing business in
the name of ‘JANGID’ for a long period of time.
48. The plaintiff has also placed reliance on the judgment of a Division
Bench of this Court in Montari Overseas Ltd. v. Montari Industries Ltd.,
where an interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff as both the
plaintiff and the defendant were using the name ‘Montari’ as a part of their
corporate names. In the said case, the Court came to the view that the
defendant had not given any satisfactory explanation for adopting the name
‘Montari’, therefore, the adoption was not innocent. This does not apply to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 11 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
the facts of the present case as the defendant and before him his father have
been using their surnames as a trademark for a long period of time.
49. Based on the material on record, at a prima facie stage, the defendant
has established bona fide use of the name ‘JANGID’ based on his own use as
well as the use of his father. Therefore, in my prima facie view, the defendant
would be entitled to the benefit of defence under Section 35 of the Trade
Marks Act.
50. The plaintiff has claimed user of the mark ‘JANGEER’ since 1 st
January, 1984, but the earliest invoices of the plaintiff are from 14 th April,
2005. The case set up by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a prior user having
goodwill and reputation in the mark ‘JANGEER’ and that the use of the mark
‘JANGIR/JANGID’ by the defendant is not bona fide, would have to be
established by the plaintiff in trial.
51. At this juncture, a comparison may be made of the registered marks of
the plaintiff and the defendant under class 7.
Class Plaintiff's Mark Defendant's Mark
7
JANGEER
52. The aforesaid comparison would show that visually the two marks are
quite dissimilar. There is a difference in spelling of the marks of the plaintiff
and the defendant. The plaintiff uses the mark ‘JANGEER’, whereas the mark
of the defendant includes an ‘I’ in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e.,
‘JANGID’. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the
plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 12 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
different.. The added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct
from the plaintiff’s mark. In my prima facie view, the marks when compared
as a whole bear no deceptive similarity to each other and hence, would not
create any confusion in the minds of consumers.
53. After hearing submissions of the counsel on 18th February, 2025, the
following order was passed by this Court:-
“1. Submissions on behalf of the counsel for the parties have
been heard.
2. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, senior counsel, appearing on behalf
of the defendant no.1 submits that the defendant is willing to
give an undertaking that the defendant no.1 shall not use the
marks “Jangir” or “Jangeer”. He further submits that the
defendant no.1 is also willing to give an undertaking that
defendant no.1 shall use the mark exactly in the manner that
the defendant has been granted registration for in class 7, i.e..
3. Mr. Vikas Khera seeks some time to take instructions.
4. List on 24th February, 2025.”
[emphasis supplied]
54. On the next date of hearing, Mr. Khera returned with instructions that
plaintiff was not agreeable to the same. In my view, binding the defendant to
the aforesaid statement would be a just and fair interim arrangement till the
final adjudication of the suit.
55. In light of the discussion above, the following directions are passed as
an interim arrangement in the present case so that both the plaintiff and the
defendant smoothly continue to conduct their respective businesses:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 13 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19
i. The defendant, during the pendency of the suit, shall not use the
mark ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’.
ii. The defendant shall not use the mark ‘JANGID’ on a stand-alone
basis. The defendant shall only use the device markexactly in the same manner for which he has
been granted registration in classes 7 and 35.
56. I.A. 13953/2022 filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
57. Needless to state, any observations made herein are only for the
purpose of adjudication of the present application and would have no bearing
on the final outcome of the suit.
CS(COMM) 598/2022 and I.A. 121/2023
58. As recorded in the order dated 9th October, 2023 passed by the Joint
Registrar, admission/denial of documents in the present suit is complete.
59. List for framing of issues on 28th July, 2025.
AMIT BANSAL
(JUDGE)
MARCH 11, 2025
ds
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 598/2022 Page 14 of 14
By:KOMAL DHAWAN
Signing Date:11.03.2025
14:42:19