Short Summary
The petitioner challenged a trial court order that affirmed an injunction granted in favor of the respondents/plaintiffs. The dispute centered on the similarity between the respondents' brands ('Rashtriya Khajuraho Griha Udyog' and 'Calash Chhap Tobacco - Lalluwali') and the petitioner's brand ('Rashtrapriya Khajuraho Tambakhu Griha Udyog').
Detailed Summary
In the crowded marketplace of regional Indian brands, standing out is hard — but copying a competitor's identity is even harder to get away with. This case is a cautionary tale for every founder who thinks a tiny tweak to a famous name is clever marketing. When two tobacco brands from the same town collide over nearly identical names, the courts don't hesitate to draw the line. The lesson? Brand identity is not a playground for near-duplicates.
The dispute pitted two parties against each other over strikingly similar brand names in the tobacco industry. The respondents/plaintiffs operated under the names 'Rashtriya Khajuraho Griha Udyog' and 'Calash Chhap Tobacco - Lalluwali' — established marks tied to the Khajuraho region. The petitioner, Rajnarayan Dwivedi, ran his business under the name 'Rashtrapriya Khajuraho Tambakhu Griha Udyog.' The resemblance was hard to miss: both brands leaned on the Khajuraho identity, both used the 'Griha Udyog' suffix, and the prefix differed by only a few letters — 'Rashtriya' versus 'Rashtrapriya.' The respondents had secured their registered trademark rights, and when they saw the petitioner's brand creeping into the market, they moved for legal protection. A trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and granted an injunction restraining the petitioner from using the similar mark. Unwilling to accept the ruling, Rajnarayan Dwivedi escalated the challenge.
The petitioner argued that his brand name was sufficiently distinct and that the minor variation between 'Rashtriya' and 'Rashtrapriya' was enough to differentiate the two businesses in the eyes of consumers. He contended that the trial court had erred in finding the marks confusingly similar. On the other side, the respondents maintained that the petitioner's brand was a deliberate attempt to ride on the goodwill and reputation they had built through their registered trademarks. They pointed to the shared geographic identifier 'Khajuraho,' the identical 'Griha Udyog' element, and the phonetic closeness of the prefixes as evidence of infringement. The core legal friction was simple but sharp: does a small textual variation in a brand name protect a copycat, or does it confirm an intent to deceive?
[THE VER
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madhya Pradesh High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rajnarayan Dwivedi vs Girish is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd.vsOm Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas AgrovsM/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private LimitedvsInox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private LimitedvsAlaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited)vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private LimitedvsMaha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
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.
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.