Short Summary
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
Detailed Summary
The plaintiff, M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., is a manufacturer and marketer of electrical goods including electrical appliances, accessories, fittings, wires and cables, switches, household/kitchen utensils, PVC pipes, and electrical water heaters. The defendants are Saurabh Kumar Agarwal (Defendant No. 1) and Shyam Singh (Defendant No. 2), both based in Shahdara/Delhi area.
The plaintiff instituted CS (Comm.) No. 02/2025 before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-03, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, presided by Sh. Sanjay Sharma-II, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered trademarks 'GOLDMEDAL' (in word and artistic forms), along with delivery up, rendition of accounts, and in the alternative, damages of Rs. 3,01,000/- and costs.
The word mark 'Goldmedal' was originally adopted in 1979-80 by 'M/s. Bright Electricals', which also owned the device mark 'Goldmedal' under TM No. 518258 dated 12.10.1989 in Class 9. This trademark was subject to a split assignment via Deed of Assignment dated 03.05.1993, approved by the Trade Mark Registry, Mumbai, on 10.06.2003, dividing the mark into SP-I (electrical switches, extension cords, electrical parts and fittings) and SP-II (main switches and fuse units).
Through a series of subsequent assignments:
- On 22.03.2013, M/s. Bright Electricals assigned trademarks and copyrights in 'Goldmedal' to the plaintiff.
- On 25.02.2010 and 02.04.2010, rights in TM No. 518258 (SP-II) were assigned to the plaintiff.
- On 29.11.2013, M/s. Jainson Industries assigned rights in TM No. 518258 (SP-I) to the plaintiff.
- On 29.11.2013, M/s. Vandan Switchgear assigned rights in TM No. 518258 (SP-II) to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff holds multiple trademark registrations across Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 35, and 39, with claimed user dates as early as 01.01.1979. The plaintiff also holds copyright registrations for the 'GOLDMEDAL LABEL' and 'G GOLD MEDAL LABEL'. The plaintiff has been using the trademarks continuously, openly, and exclusively since 1979-80, and maintains the website www.goldmedalindia.com.
The plaintiff contended that the defendants were infringing its registered trademarks and copyrights by using identical or deceptively similar marks and packaging for 'wires and cables' and cognate/allied goods. The plaintiff filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC for summary judgment, arguing that the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim and that there was no compelling reason for a trial.
The court, after hearing arguments on 20.05.2026, allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XIII-A CPC. The court granted a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendant No. 1 (Saurabh Kumar Agarwal), restraining him from infringing or passing off the registered trademarks 'GOLDMEDAL' (in word and artistic forms) and copyrights therein, or from printing, preparing, selling, or using the said trademarks for identical or similar packaging boxes for 'wires and cables' and cognate/allied goods.
The plaintiff was awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, along with the amount paid to the Local Commissioner and court fees affixed. The suit against Defendant No. 2 (Shyam Singh) was dismissed as not pressed. The plaintiff was permitted to dispose of the seized packaging boxes. The decree sheet was ordered to be prepared, and the file consigned to the record room. The order was pronounced on 24 August 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi District Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
United Biotech Pvt. Ltd.vsOrchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by United Biotech Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's decision to remove its trademark FORZID from the register. The court found that the respondent, Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, had successfully demonstrated a likelihood of confusion between their earlier registered mark ORZID and the appellant's mark FORZID in the pharmaceutical sector. This judgment reinforces the principle that even sophisticated buyers can be misled by deceptively similar marks operating in the same field.
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors.vsRxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
Estuaries Industries Private LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the trademark application 'BLEND IT'. The court noted that the Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's existing registered mark, 'BLEND IT RIGHT', in Class 32. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application, ensuring the prior registration is taken into account.
Adyar Gate Hotels LimitedvsITC Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court set aside an ex-parte interim injunction that had restrained Adyar Gate Hotels Limited from using the trademark 'Dakshin'. The court found that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was independently using the mark since 2015 and had shifted premises recently. This decision allows the matter to proceed on merits, requiring the appellant to file a formal response before the case is heard fully.
Officine Maccaferri S. P. A.vsTechfab India Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an injunction and account of profits against the defendant alleging patent infringement. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from pre-institution mediation and condonation of delay in filing replies.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.