Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v. Rajkumar Sabu

When a brand is born out of a family kitchen and grows into a household name, the question of who truly owns it can tear the family apart. The Delhi High Court recently faced exactly this kind of dispute over the trademark 'SACHAMOTI', a mark associated with sabudana. The case is a powerful reminder that even the most personal of business legacies can become entangled in legal warfare, and that courts sometimes choose balance over finality when the evidence is murky.

The dispute unfolded between members of the same family — Kaushalya Devi Sabu and others (the appellants) on one side, and Rajkumar Sabu (the respondent) on the other. At the heart of the conflict was the trademark 'SACHAMOTI', used in connection with sabudana, a staple product in many Indian households. The appellants brought an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging a lower court judgment that had gone against them. That earlier ruling had concluded that the appellants could not sufficiently prove their prior use of the 'SACHAMOTI' mark, effectively tilting the ownership question in favor of the respondent. The appellants sought to overturn that finding, arguing that their connection to the brand predated the respondent's claims.

On one side, the appellants contended that they had a legitimate prior claim to the 'SACHAMOTI' trademark, rooted in the family's involvement in building the brand. They pushed back against the lower court's conclusion that they had failed to establish prior use, arguing that the evidence presented was enough to demonstrate their longstanding association with the mark. On the other side, the respondent stood on the strength of the lower court's ruling, which had accepted their position and rejected the appellants' prior use claim. The legal friction centered on a classic trademark question: who used the mark first, and who has the stronger claim to its ownership? With both sides being members of the same family, the dispute carried an emotional weight that made the legal arguments even more charged.

Rather than delivering a sweeping victory to either side, the Delhi High Court chose a path of caution. Recognizing the contentious nature of the dispute and the deep familial roots of the brand, the Court directed that the status quo ante — the situation as it existed before the lower court's ruling — should be maintained until the appeal was finally disposed of. This meant that neither party could claim sole ownership or take actions that would prejudice the other while the case was still being decided on its merits. The outcome was a mixed one: the appellants did not get the outright reversal they sought, but they also were not shut out. Both sides were allowed to continue operating their businesses, with the Court reserving its final judgment on the trademark's true ownership for a later date.

For founders and family-run businesses, this case carries a critical lesson: when trademarks are born out of shared family effort, the absence of clear documentation about who created or first used the mark can come back to haunt everyone involved. If you are building a brand within a family or partnership structure, invest early in written agreements, clear records of who developed the mark, and formal trademark registrations in the right names. And if you ever find yourself on either side of a prior use dispute, understand that courts may choose to freeze the situation rather than pick a winner — meaning your ability to keep operating depends on how well you have protected your claim from day one.