{"id":297335,"date":"2023-07-20T16:30:42","date_gmt":"2023-07-20T11:00:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=297335"},"modified":"2023-07-26T08:42:55","modified_gmt":"2023-07-26T03:12:55","slug":"exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/b> A Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J.*<\/b>, opined that the plaintiff’s marks, \"vasundhra<\/a>, \"vasundhra<\/a> and \"vasundhra<\/a>) when compared as a whole with Defendant 1’s marks, \"vasundhra<\/a>, \"vasundhra<\/a> and \"vasundhra<\/a>, bear no deceptive similarity to each other and hence, would not create any confusion in the minds of consumers. Therefore, it could not be said that Defendant 1 was passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie<\/i> case in its favour for the grant of interim injunction and balance of convenience was also against granting of interim injunction, on account of long use of Defendant 1, that is, since 2001.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

The plaintiff was established in 1999 under the name and style of “VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED” and had been using the name “VASUNDHRA\/VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS” as a trade name and trade mark. The plaintiff first adopted the trade mark “VASUNDHRA” in 1999 for jewellery in precious metal and gems and used several manners of representations for its trade mark “VASUNDHRA” and had registrations in its favour in Class 14. The plaintiff was also the owner of the domain name ‘www.vasundhrajewellers.com’ since 2011 and various other domain names consisting of ‘VASUNDHRA\/VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS’ as an essential part.<\/p>\n

In 2019, the plaintiff came across the ‘VASUNDHARA’ marks being used by Defendant 1, which were cited in the Examination Report issued by the Trade Mark Registry for the plaintiff’s application for registration of the mark “VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED” in Class 14. Further, in January 2022, the plaintiff came across the official website of Defendant 1, Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, bearing the domain name, ‘https:\/\/www.vasundhara.in’ (‘impugned domain name’). It was discovered that the defendant was also engaged in selling identical products and services, i.e., jewellery and precious stones, etc. The plaintiff submitted that perusal of the website revealed that Defendant 1 was using the mark “VASUNDHARA” and its formative marks (Label\/Device\/Logo), for identical goods and services. The defendant no.1 supplies products bearing the impugned mark across India. Defendant 1 also operated Instagram and Facebook accounts using the name “Vasundhara”. A cease-and-desist notice was issued by the plaintiff to Defendant 1. The aforesaid notice was replied to by Defendant 1 claiming user of the impugned marks from 2001. Accordingly, the present suit was filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction based on infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/b><\/p>\n

The Court noted that both the plaintiff and Defendant 1 were the registered proprietors of the marks ‘VASUNDHRA’ and ‘VASUNDHARA’ respectively in the same Class 14 in respect of jewellery products. Thus, the Court opined that both the marks were phonetically identical and since both the plaintiff and Defendant 1 were registered proprietors of an identical mark, in view of Section 28(3)<\/a> read with Section 30(2)(e)<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (‘Act’), an action for infringement would not be maintainable. The Court further opined that since the plaintiff had filed the present case for infringement and passing off, the case of the plaintiff, at the stage of grant of interim injunction, could be considered in the context of the relief of passing off.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Vasundhra Jewellers (P) Ltd.<\/i> v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani<\/i> (‘Kirat Vinodbhai’), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370<\/a>, wherein “the plaintiff had sought an interim injunction on the ground of infringement as well as passing off against the defendant, who was using the device mark “VASUNDHRA FASHION’ registered in Class 25 relating to ‘textile, textile goods and fabrics’. The Division Bench in Kirat Vinodbhai case (supra) affirmed the decision of the Single Judge wherein injunction was denied to the plaintiff on the ground that the word ‘VASUNDHRA’ was a common name in India and therefore, an exclusive right to use the same could not be granted to the plaintiff”. This Court further opined that the following observations of the Division Bench in Kirat Vinodbhai case (supra) were applicable to the present case:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    ‘VASUNDHRA’ was a generic\/common word and there were several registered trade marks with the mark ‘VASUNDHRA’.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Exclusive monopoly could not be claimed on the mark ‘VASUNDHRA’ on account of registration of the composite mark including the aforesaid mark.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    The plaintiff could not take a contrary stand to the one taken before the Registrar of Trade Marks while getting the mark registered.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court noted that the plaintiff in reply to the Examination Report in 2019, had taken a categorical stand that the spelling of the word ‘VASUNDHRA’ used by the plaintiff and the word ‘VASUNDHARA’ used by Defendant 1 was different and when the mark was read as a whole, it could not be considered to be similar or identical with that of Defendant 1. The plaintiff had further submitted that the letter “V” had been used by Defendant 1 in a stylized form, which was enough to create a distinction between the two marks and hence, there would be no confusion in the mind of the consumers.<\/p>\n

    The Court relied on Raman Kwatra<\/i> v. KEI Industries Ltd.<\/i>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 38<\/a>, wherein it was held that “a party that had made an assertion that its mark was dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, was not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark was deceptively similar. It was settled law that a person was not permitted to approbate and reprobate. A party making contrary assertions was not entitled to any equitable relief.”<\/i>. Thus, the Court opined that the plaintiff could not take a contrary stand in the present suit to the effect that the mark of Defendant 1 was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate.<\/p>\n

    Comparison of the marks of the plaintiff and Defendant 1:<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    Trade Marks of the Plaintiff<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    Trade Marks of Defendant 1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

    \n

    \"vasundhra<\/a>, \"vasundhra<\/a> and \"vasundhra<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

    		\n

    \"vasundhra<\/a>, \"vasundhra<\/a> and \"vasundhra<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The Court opined that the comparison of the marks would show that there was a difference in spelling of the marks of the plaintiff and Defendant 1. The plaintiff used the mark ‘VASUNDHRA’, whereas the mark of Defendant 1 included an additional ‘A’, i.e., ‘VASUNDHARA’. Undoubtedly, both the marks were phonetically identical. However, apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and Defendant 1, the manner and style of writing was also completely different.<\/p>\n

    The Court further opined that 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. Therefore, it could not be said that Defendant 1 was passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie<\/i> case in its favour for the grant of interim injunction and balance of convenience was also against granting of interim injunction, on account of long use of Defendant 1, that is, since 2001.<\/p>\n

    The matter would next be listed on 28-8-2023 before the Joint Registrar.<\/p>\n

    [Vasundhra Jewellers (P) Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4185<\/a>, decided on 19-7-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment authored by: Justice Amit Bansal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

    For the Plaintiff: Sagar Chandra, Prateek Kumar, Shubhie Wahi, Sanya Kapoor, Aarushi Jain, Yojit Parcek, Advocates;<\/p>\n

    For the Defendants: Suvashish Sen Gupta, Pawan Kumar Maheshwari, Kumar Vivek Vibhu, Parve Khare, Advocates.<\/p>\n

    Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"trade<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “A party that has made an assertion that its mark is dissimilar to a cited mark and obtains a registration based on that assertion, is not to be entitled to obtain an interim injunction against the proprietor of the cited mark, on the ground that the mark is deceptively similar.”<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":293503,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2543,59530,3215,59531,42107,14722,51916,59529],"class_list":["post-297335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-generic-word","tag-infringement","tag-mark","tag-monopoly","tag-passing-off","tag-vasundhara","tag-vasundhra"],"yoast_head":"\nExclusive monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA': Delhi HC | SCC Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to "Vasundhra Jewellers" and held that monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA'\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to "Vasundhra Jewellers" and held that monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA'.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-20T11:00:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-07-26T03:12:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Simranjeet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/\",\"name\":\"Exclusive monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA': Delhi HC | SCC Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-20T11:00:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-07-26T03:12:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to \\\"Vasundhra Jewellers\\\" and held that monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA'\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"delhi high court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd\",\"name\":\"Simranjeet\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Simranjeet\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Exclusive monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA': Delhi HC | SCC Blog","description":"Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to \"Vasundhra Jewellers\" and held that monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA'","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers","og_description":"Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to \"Vasundhra Jewellers\" and held that monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA'.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-07-20T11:00:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-07-26T03:12:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Simranjeet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Simranjeet","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","name":"Exclusive monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA': Delhi HC | SCC Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","datePublished":"2023-07-20T11:00:42+00:00","dateModified":"2023-07-26T03:12:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd"},"description":"Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to \"Vasundhra Jewellers\" and held that monopoly cannot be claimed on generic word 'VASUNDHRA'","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"delhi high court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/aaee99423671d3377042373c5dcdabbd","name":"Simranjeet","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/03d92c7ef8267a8c57730c194d10ea045f0dc6cb00ce27a633a2e25adccce1c9?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Simranjeet"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":274188,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/22\/delhi-high-court-denies-grant-of-exclusive-right-to-use-the-name-vasundhra-for-being-a-common-name-in-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":297335,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court denies grant of exclusive right to use the name \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019 for being a common name in India","author":"Editor","date":"September 22, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by Vasundhara Jewelers Private Limited (\u2018plaintiff\u2019), praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and\/or in any manner using, in relation to any jewelry any other allied and cognate goods including but\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358321,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":297335,"position":1},"title":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks| Delhi High Court protects jewellery firm\u2019s right to use founder\u2019s name \u2018Vasundhara\u2019; No injunction granted","author":"Arunima","date":"August 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The appellant, Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 1999, claims continuous use and registration of the mark VASUNDHRA for jewellery, while the respondent, Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, incorporated in 2016, traces its mark VASUNDHARA to its founder Vasundhara Mantri, who has used the name in business since 2001.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358860,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/intellectual-property-rights-august-2025-roundup-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":297335,"position":2},"title":"IPR August 2025: A quick recap of the Months\u2019 top Intellectual Property Rights cases","author":"Sonali Ahuja","date":"September 3, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Covering all the important IPR cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, links to other roundups, latest legal updates in criminal law and a few top stories of the month.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights August 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-August-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-August-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-August-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-August-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":376867,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/26\/delhi-hc-grants-interim-injunction-in-chacha-trade-mark-infringement\/","url_meta":{"origin":297335,"position":3},"title":"Mark “Chacha” distinctive for garments; Delhi High Court grants interim injunction in trade mark suit","author":"Ritu","date":"February 26, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cCHACHA, though otherwise a word of common usage, has clearly no connection with sarees or garments. There is no basis, therefore, for a Court to hold that, when used in connection with the sarees or garments, the word CHACHA is not distinctive.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Chacha trade mark infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Chacha-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277941,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/23\/delhi-high-court-confirms-ad-interim-ex-parte-order-of-injunction-passed-in-favour-of-sun-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-for-its-mark-forzest-cost-of-rs-10-lakhs-imposed-for-concealing\/","url_meta":{"origin":297335,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court confirms ad-interim ex-parte order of injunction passed in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. for its mark \u2018FORZEST\u2019; Cost of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed for concealing material facts","author":"Editor","date":"November 23, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a trade mark infringement case where the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was challenged, the Single Judge Bench of Navin Chawla, J. confirmed the order of injunction passed by this Court in favour of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., and imposed Rs. 10,00,000 costs on\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/delhi_high_court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":357858,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/26\/yatra-is-generic-word-cannot-be-monopolized-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":297335,"position":5},"title":"\u2018YATRA\u2019 is a generic and descriptive word, cannot be monopolized: Delhi HC denies relief to travel company in trade mark infringement suit","author":"Editor","date":"August 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Plaintiff\u2019s registered marks are Device Marks and not Word Marks. Hence, no infringement can be brought merely because of the use of the word \u2018YATRA\u2019 by the Defendant as \u2018YATRA\u2019 is a generic and a descriptive word.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Yatra is generic","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Yatra-is-generic.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297335","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=297335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/297335\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/293503"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=297335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=297335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=297335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}