Sunshine Velvet Private Limited v. Ramesh Kumar Jeevraj Luniya & Ors.

In the world of intellectual property, a name change is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. For startups and growing businesses, the assumption that rebranding can wipe the slate clean of past infringement allegations is a dangerous misconception—one that the Delhi High Court recently reinforced in a trademark dispute between two velvet fabric sellers. When a plaintiff can show that the infringing mark continues to be used in the market, even a clever rebrand may not be enough to dissolve an interim injunction.

Sunshine Velvet Private Limited, the plaintiff, found itself in a trademark dispute with Ramesh Kumar Jeevraj Luniya and others (the defendants). The defendants had been operating under the name 'SAANCHI VELVET FABRICS,' a mark that Sunshine Velvet alleged infringed its own trademark rights. As the suit progressed, Defendants 1 and 2 attempted to distance themselves from the controversy by claiming they had changed their firm's name to 'SAMIKSHA VELVET FABRICS.' The matter reached the Delhi High Court on 25 April 2023, where the court was tasked with addressing an interim application and managing the procedural posture of the case.

The defendants' central argument was procedural and tactical: by changing their business name from 'SAANCHI VELVET FABRICS' to 'SAMIKSHA VELVET FABRICS,' they sought to convince the court that the basis for the existing interim order no longer applied. Implicit in their argument was the idea that the rebranding neutralized the alleged infringement. Sunshine Velvet, on the other hand, maintained that the change in name was insufficient to address the ongoing concerns, particularly if the defendants continued to operate in the same market with a confusingly similar identity. The court also had to deal with a separate procedural hurdle—Defendant No. 3 had not yet been served, requiring the court to issue directions for fresh service before the matter could move forward on all fronts.

The Delhi High Court delivered a measured outcome. On the procedural side, the court directed fresh service on Defendant No. 3, acknowledging that the suit could not fully proceed until all parties were properly before it. On the substantive trademark issue, however, the court confirmed the existing interim order as it applied to Defendants 1 and 2. Despite the defendants' claim of a name change, the court was not persuaded that the rebrand alone dissolved the plaintiff's infringement claims. The matter was set for further completion of pleadings, leaving the door open for the final adjudication of the trademark dispute while keeping the protective interim measures firmly in place.

For founders and IP professionals, this case carries a clear and practical lesson: rebranding does not automatically shield a business from ongoing trademark infringement claims. If a plaintiff can demonstrate continued use of the infringing mark—or even a confusingly similar successor mark—an interim injunction can and will be maintained. Before changing a business name in the middle of a dispute, companies should conduct thorough trademark clearance searches and seek legal counsel to understand whether the new name truly distances them from the alleged infringement. A name change is a cosmetic fix; it does not erase the legal reality of how a brand is perceived and used in the marketplace.