Somani Industries v. Registrar Of Trade Mark, Government Of India; Somani Ceramics Limited

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2022

Somani Industries approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking intervention regarding a long-pending trademark application ('SOMANI'). The petitioner sought direction for the Registrar of Trade Marks to expedite the decision process, especially considering an existing opposition from Somani Ceramics Limited. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Registrar to decide both the pending application and the associated opposition at the earliest, preferably within two months.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18226/2022
Judge(s)
Vinit Kumar Mathur

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur. Understanding the court's reasoning in Somani Industries vs Registrar Of Trade Mark, Government Of India; Somani Ceramics Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark

The Gillette CompanyvsA.K. Stationery

The Gillette Company filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against A.K. Stationery and others for alleged infringement of its trade mark 'FLEXGRIP' in connection with writing instruments. The dispute centered on the defendants using similar marks like 'EKCO FLEXGRIP'.

trademarkTM/9/2021

Levi Strauss And Co.vsSharanjeet Singh

Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.

trademarkCS(COMM) 452/2025

Hell Energy Magyarorszag KftvsSipsnap Soda Llp & Ors

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hell Energy against Sipsnap Soda. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service upon the defendants. Crucially, the court permitted the plaintiff to appoint a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence at the defendant's premises, ensuring the preservation of potential infringing materials. This order moves the case forward by formalizing the suit for permanent injunction regarding the 'HELL ENERGY' trademark and trade dress.

trademarkIP-COM/59/2024

Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private LimitedvsDeepak Kumar Barnwal

This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose a material disclaimer in its registration certificate, which limited exclusive use of the device 'Swastik'. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

trademarkCS(COMM) 1389/2025

Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr.vsKrishna Alias Tinku & Anr.

In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.

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