Short Summary
V-Guard Industries Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the registered trade mark 'G-GUARD' (Registration No. 3799287) in Class 11, owned by the respondent. The petitioner claimed prior adoption and extensive use of the mark 'V-GUARD' since 1977, alleging that the respondent's adoption of the similar mark 'G-GUARD' was not bonafide. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents, issued notice to the respondents, and directed the filing of reply and rejoinder, with the matter re-notified for hearing on 30.11.2026.
Detailed Summary
The present petition, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 282/2026, was filed by V-Guard Industries Limited (the petitioner) under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act before the Delhi High Court, seeking cancellation of Trade Mark Registration No. 3799287 dated 07.04.2018 for the mark 'G-GUARD' in Class 11, registered in the name of the respondent no. 1, Sh. Teja Ram K. Chaudhary, proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries. The matter was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan.
The petitioner contended that it had adopted the mark 'V-GUARD' in the year 1977 and had been extensively using it since then. It further submitted that it had successfully obtained trade mark registrations for 'V-GUARD' and its formative marks in several classes, the details of which were enumerated in Para 12 of the petition. The petitioner asserted that it was the prior adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the 'V-GUARD' trademark in various classes, and that the adoption of the impugned mark 'G-GUARD' by the respondent no. 1 was deliberate and not bonafide.
On behalf of the respondent no. 1, it was stated that an application for registration of the impugned mark 'G-GUARD' was filed on 07.04.2018 in Class 11 with a user claim since 30.04.2006. The mark was published in Trade Mark Journal No. 1958-0 dated 27.07.2020. Due to an alleged oversight, the publication escaped the petitioner's attention, and in the absence of any opposition, the impugned mark was placed on the Register on 26.01.2021.
In addition to the main petition, the petitioner filed I.A. 27731/2026 under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Rule 29 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022, seeking leave to file additional documents within a period of 30 days. The Court permitted the petitioner to file additional documents as prayed, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, and the IPD Rules 2022, and disposed of the application.
Regarding the main petition, the Court issued notice to the respondents. Mr. Piyush Gaur, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, accepted notice. Notice was directed to be issued to respondent no. 1 by all permissible modes upon the petitioner taking steps. The Court directed that the reply be filed within four weeks, with the rejoinder to be filed before the next date of hearing. The matter was re-notified for hearing on 30.11.2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in V-Guard Industries Limited vs Sh. Teja Ram K Chaudhary Proprietor of M/s G. Gaurd Cable Industries and Anr 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.