Short Summary
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking confirmation of a prior ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from using the '22' trademark for chewing tobacco. The court found prima facie evidence supporting the defendant's claim of honest concurrent user since at least 1975, based on excise records and sales data. Consequently, the existing interim injunction was vacated, but the defendant's use of the mark was restricted geographically to Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar, and they were mandated to file quarterly accounts.
Detailed Summary
In the world of trademarks, registration is often seen as the ultimate shield. But what happens when a registered owner tries to crush a competitor who has been operating under the same mark for decades, long before the registration was even granted? The Delhi High Court faced exactly this dilemma in a dispute over the iconic '22' trademark for chewing tobacco, where the battle lines were drawn not over who registered first, but over who actually used the mark honestly and continuously in the marketplace.
The dispute pitted M/S Vrajlal Manilal & Co. against M/S Bansal Tobacco Co. over the use of the '22' trademark in the chewing tobacco business. Vrajlal Manilal & Co., holding registered rights to the mark, sought to restrain Bansal Tobacco Co. from using the same '22' designation. An ex-parte injunction had already been granted in favor of the plaintiff, effectively freezing the defendant's operations under the mark. The defendant, however, came prepared with a different narrative—one rooted in years of actual market presence and documented commercial activity dating back to at least 1975.
The legal friction centered on a fundamental tension in trademark law: the supremacy of registration versus the rights of an honest concurrent user. The plaintiff relied on its registered trademark rights to argue that the defendant's use of the '22' mark constituted infringement and warranted the continuation of the injunction. The defendant countered with a powerful evidentiary showing of honest concurrent user, presenting excise records and sales data that demonstrated continuous use of the '22' trademark since 1975. This documentary evidence painted a picture of a business that had built its commercial identity around the mark long before any registration dispute arose, challenging the very foundation of the plaintiff's claim to exclusive use.
The Delhi High Court found that the defendant had established a prima facie case of honest concurrent user, supported by credible documentary evidence in the form of excise clearances and sales records. Recognizing that the defendant's commercial history predated and ran parallel to the plaintiff's claims, the court vacated the existing interim injunction. However, the court did not give the defendant a completely free hand. The use of the '22' mark by Bansal Tobacco Co. was geographically restricted to Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Bihar. Additionally, the defendant was mandated to file quarterly accounts of its sales, creating a structured framework that balanced the competing interests while protecting the plaintiff's ability to monitor and quantify any potential damages.
For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a critical lesson: registration alone does not guarantee absolute exclusivity, especially when a competitor can demonstrate decades of honest, documented use. Maintaining meticulous records—excise clearances, sales data, invoices, and other commercial documents—is not just good business hygiene; it is potentially the most powerful defense in a trademark dispute. If you are operating in a market with a mark that may conflict with a registered owner, start preserving your evidence trail immediately. And if you are the registered owner, conduct thorough market investigations before assuming your registration gives you a monopoly, because honest concurrent users with strong documentation can dismantle even an ex-parte injunction.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Vrajlal Manilal & Co. vs M/S Bansal Tobacco Co. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
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.