CAPITAL being English translation of registered mark RAJDHANI constitutes trade mark infringement: Delhi HC

Delhi High Court: While hearing an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking an ad interim injunction, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., held that the mark CAPITAL was the English translation of the registered mark RAJDHANI and constituted passing off and trade mark infringement. Thus, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from using the marks CAPITAL and TAJDHANI.

Background

The plaintiff is a private company and the registered proprietor of the marks RAJDHANI, and for products like atta, maida, sooji, dalia, pulses, rice, papad, poha, popcorn, seviyan (vermicelli), etc. The plaintiff stated that it has gained immense popularity and recognition in the market owing to painstaking efforts, extensive advertisements and huge investments. The plaintiff further stated that it is the owner of copyright in the original artistic work on the trade dress/packaging for its products and by virtue of Section 17(c), Copyright Act, 1957 is entitled to protect it from infringement by third parties.

Defendant 1 is engaged in the business of retail and wholesale products such as pasta (cooked/uncooked and/or stuffed or non-stuffed), spaghetti, macaroni, noodles, lasagne, gnocchi, ravioli, cannelloni, etc. breads, pastries, cakes, biscuits, wafers and similar products. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are retailers and wholesalers of kirana items.

Through a market survey, the plaintiff had discovered that Defendant 1 was manufacturing and Defendants 2 to 4 were selling vermicelli under the trade name TAJDHANI and CAPITAL which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade name RAJDHANI.

The plaintiff contended that the impugned mark TAJDHANI is nearly identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trade mark RAJDHANI and the mark CAPITAL is the English translation of Rajdhani besides impugned trade dress/artistic work/packaging being also deceptively similar. Further, the defendants have copied the entire trade dress, artistic work, colour scheme, stylisation and manner of writing, type font, logogram, symbols, icons, graphic and images of the plaintiff in which it has registered copyrights. This according to the plaintiff amounts to infringement of trade marks and copyright.

Analysis, Law and Decision

The Court noted that the defendants, having adopted the trade mark TAJDHANI, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s RAJDHANI and CAPITAL, which was the English translation of the mark RAJDHANI, were guilty of copyright infringement and passing off. The Court also relied on Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industry, 1994 SCC OnLine Del 387, wherein the Court had held that the use of the word Peacock by the defendants would constitute infringement of trade mark MAYUR, which was the registered mark of the plaintiff.

Thus, the Court opined that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. The balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm and injury if the injunction so prayed for is not granted.

Accordingly, the Court directed the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, distributing, selling or advertising any product/packaging material under the trade mark TAJDHANI//CAPITAL/ or their related marks which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark RAJDHANI//, in any manner that would amount to copyright infringement or passing off.

[Victoria Foods (P) Ltd. v. Ashad Trading Co., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 862, decided on 12-2-2026]

---

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner: Abhinav Bhatia, Sakshi Jain, Himanshu, Advocates