{"id":358321,"date":"2025-08-29T14:30:11","date_gmt":"2025-08-29T09:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=358321"},"modified":"2025-08-30T15:15:06","modified_gmt":"2025-08-30T09:45:06","slug":"delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks| Delhi High Court protects jewellery firm\u2019s right to use founder\u2019s name \u2018Vasundhara\u2019; No injunction granted"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> An appeal was filed by Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.) challenging order dated 19-07-2023 passed by a Single Judge of this Court in a suit filed seeking permanent injunction, restraining the respondents and all others acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, exporting, advertising or in any other manner dealing with jewellery, precious stones, gems and any other allied or cognate goods or services under the marks and domain names VASUNDHARA JEWELLERS, VASUNDHRA<\/span>, or , the domain name www.vasundhara.in<\/span> or any other mark, label or domain name which is identical or deceptively similar to the appellant’s marks VASUNDHRA, VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS<\/span>, or VASUNDHRA<\/span>. A division bench of C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ., found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order due to absence of establishment of sufficient goodwill possessed by the appellant in the mark VASUNDHRA<\/span> prior to the commencement of user, by the respondents, of the mark VASUNDHARA<\/span>, no case of passing off can be set to exist, and the appellant cannot be held to be entitled to any injunction against the respondents.<\/p>\n

The dispute arose from a contest over the trademark “VASUNDHRA”<\/span>, which had been used in the jewellery business. The appellant claimed to be the prior user of the mark “VASUNDHRA”<\/span> in respect of jewellery and allied goods. The appellant asserted that the business was established decades earlier and had acquired goodwill and reputation under the said mark. The appellant alleged that the respondents, operating as Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, had dishonestly adopted an identical mark “VASUNDHARA”<\/span> in the jewellery industry, thereby creating confusion and attempting to ride upon the goodwill built by the appellant.<\/p>\n

The appellant-initiated proceedings seeking injunction and other reliefs on grounds of trademark infringement and passing off. The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, however, declined interim relief to the appellant, holding that a prima facie case in favour of the appellant was not made out. Thus, the present appeal was filed.<\/p>\n

The appellant contended that the Single Judge had erred in refusing interim protection as the appellant was the prior adopter and user of the mark “VASUNDHRA”<\/span> in relation to jewellery and had built extensive reputation and goodwill. The adoption of an identical mark “VASUNDHARA”<\/span> by the respondents, also in the jewellery business, was argued to be dishonest and intended to confuse the public. It was submitted that the respondents had not provided any credible justification for adopting the same name in the same trade, which indicated mala fides. The appellant emphasised that the similarity between the two marks was likely to cause deception among customers.<\/p>\n

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that they were also bona fide users of the mark “VASUNDHARA”<\/span> and had independently built goodwill under the same. It was urged that the mark was derived from the personal name of one of the partners of the respondent firm, and hence its adoption was natural and honest. They further contended that there was no deceptive similarity in the way the rival marks were used, especially considering the overall trade dress, get-up, and stylisation. It was also argued that the appellant had delayed in approaching the court despite being aware of the respondents’ use, and such delay disentitled the appellant to interim relief.<\/p>\n

The Court examined the material placed before it and noted that the controversy turned substantially on the question of prior user of the mark “VASUNDHRA”<\/span>. Both sides had claimed to be long-standing users, but the precise nature of evidence and its sufficiency could only be determined after trial.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that at the interim stage, the Single Judge had weighed the rival claims and found that the appellant had not established a strong prima facie case warranting injunction. The Court observed that in appellate jurisdiction, it would not be appropriate to substitute its own discretion for that of the Single Judge unless the exercise of discretion was manifestly erroneous or perverse.<\/p>\n

On the applicability of Section 35 of Trade Marks Act, the respondent submitted that the mark VASUNDHARA was adopted as the name of Vasundhara Mantri, who was the original proprietor of the proprietorship in whose name the registration of the device mark was obtained on 17-06-2003 claiming user from 01-06-2001, Section 35 operates as a proscription against the appellant injuncting use by the respondents of the said mark. The Court noted that the intellectual property rights of Vasundhara Mantri in the mark VASUNDHARA were assigned to Respondent 1 under the Assignment Deed dated 28-03-2019. Respondent 1, therefore, succeeded to the intellectual property rights of Vasundhara Mantri in the mark VASUNDHARA. Inasmuch as those rights were availed by an individual, the benefit of Section 35 would also be available to Respondent 1 as the assignee-in-interest of the intellectual property rights earlier held by Vasundhara Mantri.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked “the use by the respondents of the mark VASUNDHARA is completely bona fide. VASUNDHARA was used by Vasundhara Mantri. It was her own name. There is nothing whatsoever on record on the basis of which her bona fides could be questioned. She has been using the mark without interruption since 2001 or, even as per the appellant’s own showing, since 2005. The use of the mark VASUNDHARA by Vasundhara Mantri, and later by Respondent 1 has, therefore, necessarily to be treated as bona fide.” Thus, the<\/span> Court noted that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act. De hors the issue of infringement or passing off, therefore, the respondents cannot be denied the right to use the mark VASUNDHARA, in view of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n

The Court further remarked that “the fact that the respondents claim user of the mark VASUNDHARA since 1 June 2001. Even as per the appellant, the respondents had commenced use of the mark at least since 2005. The suit came to be instituted by the appellant in 2022, 17 years after the respondents had admittedly commenced use of the mark VASUNDHARA. It can hardly be said that, in the lone year 2000-2001, the appellant had accumulated sufficient goodwill to injunct the respondents from using a mark which it had been using for 17 years thereafter, before the suit came to be filed<\/span>.”<\/p>\n

On the plea of estoppel, the Court explained the plea being a species of approbate and reprobate. It operates to restrain a party from adopting two diametrically opposing stands, on the same subject matter. Thus, the Court said that the appellant had specifically contended, in response to the FER of the Trademarks Registry, that there was no confusing or deceptive similarity between the mark VASUNDHARA and VASUNDHRA. Having adopted such a stand at that stage, the appellant cannot, now, be permitted to execute a volte face and contend exactly to the contrary.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that in trademark disputes, interim injunctions are not granted as a matter of course and the balance of convenience, along with irreparable injury, must be assessed. In this case, both parties were in the same line of business, both claimed longstanding use, and the respondents had a justification for adopting the mark being based on a personal name. Thus, the grant of injunction could not be said to be a matter of right at this stage.<\/p>\n

The Court affirmed the order of the Single Judge and refused to interfere with the order denying interim injunction to the appellant.<\/p>\n

[Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5660<\/a>, decided on 18-08-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

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

Mr. Sagar Chandra, Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Aarushi Jain, Mr. Yojit Pareek, Ms. Shubhie Wahi, Ms. Sanya Kapoor, Ms. Ankita, Mr. Prasant Kr. Sharma and Mr. Chetan Charitra, Advocates for appellants<\/p>\n

Mr. Shuvasish Sen Gupta, Mr. Kumar Vivek Vibhu, Mr. Pawan Maheshwari and Mr. Bhavesh Garodia Advocates for respondents<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":358326,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[72373,74858,5881,88177,74588,88176,74589],"class_list":["post-358321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-delhihighcourt","tag-intellectualpropertyrights","tag-ipr","tag-jewellerybusiness","tag-passingoff","tag-section35","tag-trademarklaw"],"yoast_head":"\nDelhi HC on Own Name Defence in Trade Marks | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks: Delhi High Court held that Jewellery Firm's right to use Founder's name 'Vasundhara' protected under Section 35 of Trade Marks Act\" \/>\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\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks| Delhi High Court protects jewellery firm\u2019s right to use founder\u2019s name \u2018Vasundhara\u2019; No injunction granted\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks: Delhi High Court held that Jewellery Firm's right to use Founder's name 'Vasundhara' protected under Section 35 of Trade Marks Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/\" \/>\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=\"2025-08-29T09:00:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-30T09:45:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.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=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks| Delhi High Court protects jewellery firm\u2019s right to use founder\u2019s name \u2018Vasundhara\u2019; No injunction granted\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 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\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi HC on Own Name Defence in Trade Marks | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-29T09:00:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-30T09:45:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks: Delhi High Court held that Jewellery Firm's right to use Founder's name 'Vasundhara' protected under Section 35 of Trade Marks Act\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks| Delhi High Court protects jewellery firm\u2019s right to use founder\u2019s name \u2018Vasundhara\u2019; No injunction granted\"}]},{\"@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\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi HC on Own Name Defence in Trade Marks | SCC Times","description":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks: Delhi High Court held that Jewellery Firm's right to use Founder's name 'Vasundhara' protected under Section 35 of Trade Marks Act","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\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_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","og_description":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks: Delhi High Court held that Jewellery Firm's right to use Founder's name 'Vasundhara' protected under Section 35 of Trade Marks Act","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-29T09:00:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-30T09:45:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_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","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/","name":"Delhi HC on Own Name Defence in Trade Marks | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-29T09:00:11+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-30T09:45:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks: Delhi High Court held that Jewellery Firm's right to use Founder's name 'Vasundhara' protected under Section 35 of Trade Marks Act","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/delhi-high-court-vasundhara-own-name-defence-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Own Name Defence in Trade Marks| Delhi High Court protects jewellery firm\u2019s right to use founder\u2019s name \u2018Vasundhara\u2019; No injunction granted"}]},{"@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\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Own-Name-Defence-in-Trade-Marks.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":297335,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/20\/exclusive-monopoly-cannot-be-claimed-on-generic-word-vasundhra-delhi-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":358321,"position":0},"title":"\u201cCan\u2019t claim exclusive monopoly on generic word \u2018VASUNDHRA\u2019\u201d; Delhi High Court refuses to grant interim injunction to Vasundhra Jewellers","author":"Simranjeet","date":"July 20, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA 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.\u201d","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\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"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":358321,"position":1},"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":358860,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/03\/intellectual-property-rights-august-2025-roundup-scc-times\/","url_meta":{"origin":358321,"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":239665,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/26\/vasundhra-mehta-representing-india-wins-silver-medal-at-international-mediation-singapore\/","url_meta":{"origin":358321,"position":3},"title":"Vasundhra Mehta representing India wins Silver Medal at International Mediation Singapore","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 26, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Reported by Nipun Bhatia","rel":"","context":"In "Achievements"","block_context":{"text":"Achievements","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/lawschoolnews\/achievements\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/SLS-Pune_Achievement-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/SLS-Pune_Achievement-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/SLS-Pune_Achievement-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/SLS-Pune_Achievement-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/SLS-Pune_Achievement-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277698,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/18\/delhi-high-court-grants-permanent-injunction-to-star-india-pvt-ltd-against-700-rogue-websites-accused-of-illegally-streaming-cinematograph-film-bhuj-the-pride-of-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":358321,"position":4},"title":"Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Star India Pvt. Ltd. against 700 rogue websites accused of illegally streaming cinematograph film \u2018Bhuj: The Pride of India\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"November 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Delhi High Court: In a suit for permanent injunction restraining the websites from retransmitting, broadcasting, streaming or in any manner communicating to public the cinematograph film \u2018Bhuj: The Pride of India\u2019, the Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M. Singh, J. granted permanent injunction to Star India Pvt. Ltd.\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":298755,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/07\/delhi-hc-grants-permanent-injunction-to-whitehat-education-for-its-marks-and-logos-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":358321,"position":5},"title":"[WhiteHat Jr v. Whitehat Sr] Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction to Whitehat Education Technology for its marks \u2018WhiteHat Jr\u2019, \u2018W\u2019; awards Rs. 9 lakhs costs","author":"Editor","date":"August 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cDue to the fact that the defendant has not contested the matter, but compelled the plaintiff to file the present suit, by not agreeing to give up the infringing mark, despite being put to notice, the plaintiff is entitled to receive actual costs.\u201d","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\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358321","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\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=358321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358321\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/358326"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=358321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=358321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=358321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}