M/s.Nakoda Dairy (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Kewal Chand Vinod Kumar

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.