Short Summary
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of Jai Shiv Oil Industries' trademark 'GOLDI' due to its similarity with the petitioner's trademark 'GOLDIEE'. The court found that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, and that the respondent's adoption of the mark 'GOLDI' was without bonafide intention. The court also noted that the two parties were in the same business and had common trade circles, distribution networks, and retail outlets, which increased the likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
19
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr on 8 April, 2026
Author:
Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench:
Tushar Rao Gedela
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 24.02.2026
Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2026
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021
SHUBHAM GOLDIEE MASALE PVT. LTD .....Petitioner
versus
JAI SHIV OIL INDUSTRIES AND ANR. .....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and
Ms. Deasha Mehta, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with
Mr. Vineet Negi, Ms. Kavya Shukla,
Mr. Naman Sharma and Ms. Theresa, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. The present petitions have been filed under
Sections 47
,
57
and
125
of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by the
petitioner seeking, inter alia, the following prayers:-
In so far as CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 is concerned, the prayers
are as under:
"In view of the abovementioned facts/ statement of case and the
abovementioned grounds for revocation/ cancellation/ rectification, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Board may kindly be pleased
to:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter
Signing Date:09.04.2026 Page 1 of 25
14:34:56
(i) remove/ cancel/ expunge/ rectify the entry pertaining to impugned
Trade Mark "GOLDI (LABEL)" registered under no.945240 in class 29.
(ii) Stay the effect and operation of the entry pertaining to impugned
Trade Mark "GOLDI(LABEL)" registered under no.945240 in class 29
during the pendency of the present proceedings.
Any other relief(s) which is fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
including an order for costs of the proceeding to petitioners."
In so far as CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021 is concerned, the prayers
are as under:
"In view of the abovementioned facts/ statement of case and the
abovementioned grounds for revocation/ cancellation/ rectification, it is
most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Board may kindly be pleased
to:
(i) remove/ cancel/ expunge/ rectify the entry pertaining to impugned
Trade Mark "GOLDI (LABEL)" registered under no.2023762 in class
31.
(ii) Stay the effect and operation of the entry pertaining to impugned
Trade Mark "GOLDI(LABEL)" registered under no.2023762 in class 31
during the pendency of the present proceedings.
Any other relief(s) which is fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
including an order for costs of the proceeding to petitioners."
2. Since the factual matrix arising in both the petitions are substantially
common, the grounds of challenge too are common, therefore, the two
petitions are being disposed of vide this common judgment.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Arthrogen GmbhvsController General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Arthrogen Gmbh appealed the rejection of its Indian patent application for a method involving gold particle enrichment of blood serum. The Patent Office had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) and 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing it constituted a 'method of treatment.' Arthrogen successfully argued that the claims were directed towards a novel 'method of producing' a substance, not a direct method of treating humans. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Kesari TrustvsKesari Tours and Travels
The plaintiffs filed a commercial IP suit against the defendant alleging infringement and passing off related to the use of the mark 'KESARI'. The court decreed the suit, granting perpetual injunctions against the defendant for using the mark in relation to various businesses.
OCV Intellectual Capital LlcvsThe Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
Corning IncorporatedvsThe Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 202018041017) by The Controller of Patents. The court first condoned a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and subsequently granted time to both parties for written submissions before listing the matter again.
Sterlite Technologies LtdvsHfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
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.