Short Summary
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd., the registered owner of the trade mark 'NAKODA' for milk products, filed appeals challenging the dismissal of its applications for temporary injunction. The Respondents argued that they were prior and long-term users of the mark since 1978, and that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.
Detailed Summary
In the world of intellectual property, registration is often treated as the ultimate shield—a legal fortress that protects a brand from imitators. But what happens when the supposed infringer turns out to be the original user? The dispute between Nakoda Dairy and Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar is a striking reminder that a trademark registration, no matter how official, is not an absolute weapon. It is a right that exists within a larger legal framework, and that framework can sometimes favor the party who never registered at all.
Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. held the registered trademark 'NAKODA' for milk products, giving them what appeared to be a clear legal claim over the brand name in their industry. Believing their registered rights were being encroached upon, the company approached the court seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the opposing party. On the other side stood M/S. Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar, who did not hold a registration but claimed to be the original user of the mark. According to the Respondents, they had been using the 'NAKODA' mark continuously since 1978—long before the Plaintiff's registered claim was formalized. When the lower court dismissed Nakoda Dairy's application for a temporary injunction, the company appealed, setting the stage for a critical examination of how registration and prior use interact under trademark law.
Nakoda Dairy leaned on the strength of their registered trademark status, arguing that their official registration entitled them to protection against any unauthorized use of the 'NAKODA' mark in the milk products category. They sought a temporary injunction as a matter of right flowing from their registration. The Respondents, however, struck at the foundation of that argument. They contended that they were the prior and long-term users of the mark, having built their business around the 'NAKODA' name since 1978. They further argued that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case—a basic threshold requirement for any injunction. The legal friction was clear: could a registered owner claim infringement against someone who was using the mark before registration was even granted?
The court ruled in favor of the defendants, upholding the dismissal of the temporary injunction application. The reasoning rested on a fundamental principle of trademark law: the rights of a registered trademark owner are subject to the other provisions of the Act. Because the Respondents were able to demonstrate continuous use of the mark prior to the Plaintiff's registration, the registered owner could not successfully complain of infringement. The appeals failed, and the temporary injunction remained denied, leaving the prior user free to continue their established business under the 'NAKODA' name.
For founders and brand builders, this case delivers a hard truth: registering your trademark is essential, but it is not the end of the story. Before investing heavily in a brand name, conduct thorough trademark searches and investigate whether anyone else may have been using a similar mark in the market. Prior continuous use—even without registration—can serve as a powerful defense against infringement claims. Equally, if you are already using a mark without registration, document your history carefully. In trademark disputes, evidence of who came first can matter just as much as who registered first.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/s.Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. vs M/s.Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar 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.