Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India

CM(M)-IPD 5/2025

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CM(M)-IPD 5/2025
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.S.(Comm.Div) No.84 of 2023

Mr.Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa Trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private LimitedvsG.Kannan Trading as D.S.K.Garments

This case involved a suit filed by Mr. Pawan Kumar Santhaliaa (trading as M/s.Sri Shyam Store) and M/s.Techno Sportswear Private Limited against G.Kannan (D.S.K.Garments) and Hitlar Fashions. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation concerning the 'TECHNO' brand used on garments. Ultimately, a compromise was reached between the plaintiffs and the first defendant, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of the Joint Compromise Memo.

trademarkR/CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18 of 2023

Piruz Khambatta Thro Poa Zubin KhambhattavsDeputy Registrar Of Trademarks

The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Piruz Khambatta, who opposed the registration of the trademark 'RASANAND' in Class 32 (soft drinks). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of similarity to their marks like 'RASNA', there was no evidence of actual public confusion. Furthermore, the court held that the two marks were distinct in nature and appearance, allowing the registration process to continue.

trademarkLPA 45/2013

Gopal KishanvsUnion Of India & Anr

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Gopal Kishan seeking cancellation of trademarks registered in favor of the Union of India & Anr. The appellant argued that the marks were generic or lacked continuous use, but the court upheld the lower tribunal's findings. The judgment emphasized that questions regarding prior usage and distinctiveness are matters of fact best left to the specialized tribunals (like IPAB) and cannot be re-adjudicated in an appeal against a writ petition.

trademarkR/CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9 of 2024

Estuaries Industries Private LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks

The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the trademark application 'BLEND IT'. The court noted that the Respondent failed to consider the Petitioner's existing registered mark, 'BLEND IT RIGHT', in Class 32. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application, ensuring the prior registration is taken into account.

trademarkCS(COMM) 883/2022 (IA No. 9077/2024)

Bic Cello India Private LimitedvsRamanlal Rughnathmalji Jain

Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call