{"id":203,"date":"2026-02-02T05:39:44","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T05:39:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/billionpreet.com\/blog\/?p=203"},"modified":"2026-02-02T05:39:44","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T05:39:44","slug":"delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-in-sakarni-trademark-infringement-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/billionpreet.com\/blog\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-in-sakarni-trademark-infringement-case\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction in SAKARNI Trademark Infringement Case"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a decisive ruling strengthening trademark and copyright enforcement in India, the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Arif Khan (CS(COMM) 608\/2023 & I.A. 16670\/2023) granted a permanent injunction and awarded aggravated damages against the defendant for adopting a deceptively similar trademark and label. Delivered on 28 February 2025 by Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, the judgment reiterates the judiciary\u2019s strict stance against dishonest adoption of trademarks, especially in cases where infringers deliberately evade judicial proceedings. The decision reinforces settled principles relating to trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and the legal consequences of ex-parte conduct in commercial intellectual property disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Factual Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiffs in the suit were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of Jai Durga Plaster Industries<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Sakarni Plaster (India) Pvt. Ltd.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture and sale of Plaster of Paris, wall putty, and allied construction materials, marketed under the trademark \u201cSAKARNI\u201d and its Hindi equivalent \u201c\u0938\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0923\u0940\u201d. The mark has been in continuous use since 2004 and stands registered under Class 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Through long-standing commercial use, extensive distribution networks, and sustained promotional efforts, the plaintiffs established significant goodwill and reputation, with the mark \u201cSAKARNI\u201d becoming distinctly associated with their products in the construction materials market. The dispute arose when the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant, Arif Khan, had begun manufacturing and selling identical goods under the mark \u201cSIKARNI\u201d \/ \u201c\u0938\u093f\u0915\u093e\u0930\u0923\u0940\u201d, accompanied by a label strikingly similar to that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant\u2019s adoption was deliberate, dishonest, and intended to exploit their established market reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Nature of the Suit and Reliefs Claimed<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The plaintiffs instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Permanent injunction against trademark infringement<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Permanent injunction against copyright infringement<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Relief against passing off<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Delivery up of infringing goods<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Damages and costs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

      Despite valid service of summons, the defendant failed to enter appearance or file a written statement within the statutory period. Consequently, the defendant\u2019s right to defend the suit was closed, and the matter proceeded ex-parte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Issues Considered by the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      In light of the ex-parte proceedings, the Court examined whether the plaintiffs had established:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. Passing off based on deceptive similarity and prior use<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. Copyright infringement of the artistic label<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      4. Entitlement to damages and costs owing to the defendant\u2019s conduct<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Trademark Infringement: Deceptive and Phonetic Similarity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        The Court held that the defendant\u2019s mark \u201cSIKARNI\u201d was phonetically identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs\u2019 registered mark \u201cSAKARNI\u201d. The substitution of the letter \u201cA\u201d with \u201cI\u201d and the addition of expressions such as \u201cNo.1\u201d were found to be immaterial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Justice Amit Bansal emphasized that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        • Both marks were used for identical goods<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • The products targeted ordinary purchasers of construction materials<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • The likelihood of confusion and deception was inevitable<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          Reiterating settled law, the Court observed that trademarks must be compared as a whole and assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Viewed in this manner, the defendant\u2019s mark was clearly infringing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Passing Off: Prior Use and Established Goodwill<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

          On the issue of passing off, the plaintiffs successfully proved:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          • Continuous use of the \u201cSAKARNI\u201d mark since 2004<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Trademark registration dating back to 2007<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Significant goodwill and market presence<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            The Court found that the defendant\u2019s adoption of a nearly identical mark for the same goods constituted misrepresentation, intended to deceive consumers into believing an association with the plaintiffs. The defendant\u2019s dishonest intent was inferred from the close similarity of the marks, the identical nature of goods, and the absence of any explanation for adopting such a mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            Copyright Infringement: Protection of Artistic Labels<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

            In addition to trademark rights, the plaintiffs were also the registered proprietors of the copyright in the artistic label \u201cSAKARNI PLASTER \/ SAKARNI\u201d. The defendant\u2019s label was found to be a near replica, reproducing similar font styles, layout, and visual elements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            The Court held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            • The plaintiffs\u2019 label qualified as an original artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • The defendant had engaged in substantial copying<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Such reproduction amounted to clear copyright infringement<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

              The overlap of trademark and copyright infringement further strengthened the plaintiffs\u2019 claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Ex-Parte Proceedings and Legal Presumptions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

              Given the defendant\u2019s failure to contest the proceedings, the Court treated the plaintiffs\u2019 pleadings and documentary evidence as admitted. Relying on Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del)], the Court held that where the plaint is duly supported by affidavits and documents, directing formal ex-parte evidence would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the suit was liable to be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              To know more about this, please check the link below.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n