Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary v. Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr.

C/AO/256/2024

This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2023. The original plaintiffs sought relief against alleged infringement of their registered copyright and passing-off of their trademark 'RAJ KHUSHBU' concerning Ayurvedic Medicinal Oils. The High Court, while not examining the merits of the underlying dispute, quashed the lower court's order on the grounds that it was non-speaking. Consequently, the injunction application was restored to the Trial Court for a fresh hearing.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Gujarat High Court
Case Number
C/AO/256/2024
Decision Date
9 January 2025

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Gujarat High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Jitesh Kumar S/O Omprakash Maheshwary vs Babushah Ibrahimsha Juneja & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.S.Nos. 204 and 467 of 2012

M/s. Cavinkaare Private LimitedvsPanchaksharam Guru Moorthy

The Madras High Court addressed a complex dispute between M/s. Cavinkaare Private Limited and Panchaksharam Guru Moorthy regarding the trademarks 'KARTHIKA' and 'KARTIKA'. The litigation, which involved claims of infringement and passing off across multiple suits, was ultimately resolved through a Joint Compromise Memo. The court decreed C.S.No.204/2012 based on this compromise, granting Cavinkaare exclusive rights to the trademark in relevant goods and services while dismissing the counter-suit (C.S.No.467/2012).

trademarkFAO (COMM) 85/2025, CM APPL. 18350/2025 & CM APPL. 18351/2025

Tarakant SangwanivsApollo Pipes Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the custody of allegedly infringing goods in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant, who was the defendant below, challenged the Commercial Court's order directing that the seized goods be handed over on 'superdari' to the respondent (Apollo Pipes Limited). The court found merit in the appellant's argument, noting that the relief granted by the lower court exceeded what the respondent had sought in their application. Consequently, the High Court issued a notice for a show cause hearing and temporarily stayed the transfer of goods, keeping them under the custody of the appellant pending further orders.

trademarkCS(COMM) 561/2025

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals LimitedvsVarav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2025

M/S SwagathvsDhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order. First, the petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Second, the court initiated proceedings regarding a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'SWAGATH' (Registration No. 2037599). Notice has been issued to the respondents, who are required to file their replies within six weeks, setting the stage for further litigation on the core issue of trademark validity.

trademarkCS(COMM) 273/2024

Kubota CorporationvsKaira Agros & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief to Kubota Corporation in its suit against Kaira Agros. Recognizing the threat posed by counterfeit products, the court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is directed to search premises and seize packaging, stickers, and promotional material bearing infringing marks, while also documenting non-infringing machinery. The order paves the way for the formal registration of the suit.

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