Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Amit Bansal, has adjudicated on an interim injunction application in a trademark dispute concerning agricultural implements. The case involved a dispute between two entities using similar-sounding trademarks. The Court recorded the defendant’s undertaking not to use the marks ‘JANGIR’ and ‘JANGEER’ and permitted the use of its registered device mark. The Court stated, "Since both the plaintiff and the defendant are registered proprietors of similar marks, in view of Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, in my prima facie view, an action for infringement would not be maintainable."

The plaintiff, Jangeer Singh Trading as Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works, filed a suit against the defendants, Yogesh Jangid Trading as Jangid Agro Engineering and another, alleging infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s trademark ‘JANGEER’. The plaintiff, engaged in manufacturing and selling agricultural implements, claimed to have used the trademark ‘JANGEER’ since January 1, 1984, and held a registered device mark in Class 7 since September 13, 2013

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Bar on Suit by Unregistered Law Firm Against Client

The plaintiff provided details of its business, including an online presence through ‘www.jangeer.com’ and listings on ‘tradeindia.com’ and ‘indiamart.com’. The plaintiff submitted sales turnover records from the financial year 2004-2005 to 2021-22, with the turnover for the financial year 2021-22 amounting to ₹32,73,42,328 and promotional expenses of ₹13,02,909.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant was using deceptively similar trademarks, ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR,’ in relation to identical goods, creating confusion. The plaintiff stated that multiple trademark applications by the defendant under ‘JANGIR’ and ‘JANGID’ had either been refused or were pending.

The defendant contended that its family had used ‘JANGID’ as a business name since 1984. The defendant’s father, Bhomaram Jangid, had established ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’ for agricultural implements. The defendant submitted documentary evidence, including a Small Scale Industrial Unit Certificate from 1984, Bureau of Indian Standards certification, and invoices dating back to 1991. The defendant stated that ‘Jangid Agro Engineering’ was established in 2011 and had obtained registration for a device mark incorporating ‘JANGID’ in Classes 7 and 35.

The defendant submitted financial records showing a sales turnover of ₹5,84,82,947 and promotional expenses of ₹2,02,710 for 2021-22, asserting that it had built substantial goodwill under its brand.

The Court examined the maintainability of the infringement claim and recorded that both parties held trademark registrations. It stated, "Since both the plaintiff and the defendant are registered proprietors of similar marks, in view of Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, in my prima facie view, an action for infringement would not be maintainable."

The Court then considered the passing-off claim, which requires goodwill, misrepresentation, and the likelihood of damage. It observed that the defendant’s family had been in business under ‘JANGID’ since at least 1984, submitting documentary evidence such as Small Scale Industry registration, Bureau of Indian Standards certification, and historical invoices.

The Court reviewed the visual comparison of the marks and recorded, "The plaintiff uses the mark 'JANGEER', whereas the mark of the defendant includes an 'I' in place of ‘EE’ and ‘D’ in place of ‘R’ i.e., 'JANGID'. Apart from the difference in the spellings of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant, the manner and style of writing is also completely different." The Court further stated, "In my prima facie view, the marks when compared as a whole bear no deceptive similarity to each other and hence, would not create any confusion in the minds of consumers."

The Court examined the applicability of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, which protects the bona fide use of one’s own name in business. It stated, "There is nothing to suggest in the language of Section 35, that it would be applicable only in cases of infringement and not passing off. In my view, the benefit of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act would be available to a defendant, both in cases involving infringement and passing off."

The plaintiff relied on Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., where the Supreme Court held that a party’s long-standing reputation cannot be encroached upon. The Court distinguished that case, stating, "This judgment would not be applicable in the present case since the defendant and his predecessor (father) have been doing business in the name of ‘JANGID’ for a long period of time."

The Court also referred to Precious Jewels v. Varun Gems and Jindal Industries Private Limited v. Suncity Sheets Private Limited, where it was held that a common surname cannot be monopolized.

Also Read: 'Consent Cannot Be Vitiated by Mere Breach of Promise': Kerala High Court Acquits Appellant in Rape and Abduction Case

The Court recorded the defendant’s voluntary undertaking regarding its use of trademarks. It noted, "Mr. J. Sai Deepak, senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the defendant no.1 submits that the defendant is willing to give an undertaking that the defendant no.1 shall not use the marks 'Jangir' or 'Jangeer'."

Based on this, the Court issued the following directives:

1. "Defendant no.1 shall not use the marks ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’ in any manner."

2. "Defendant no.1 shall not use ‘JANGID’ as a stand-alone mark."

3. "Defendant no.1 shall be permitted to use its registered device mark incorporating ‘JANGID’ in Classes 7 and 35, exactly in the form as registered."

The Court recorded, "In my view, binding the defendant to the aforesaid statement would be a just and fair interim arrangement till the final adjudication of the suit."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiff:

• Vikas Khera, Advocate

• Rohit, Advocate

• Yash Sharma, Advocate

For the Defendants:

• J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate

• Raghav Nagar, Advocate

• Rishab Nagar, Advocate

• Avinash Sharma, Advocate

Case Title: Jangeer Singh Trading as Jangeer Singh Kabulshah Agriculture Works v. Yogesh Jangid Trading as Jangid Agro Engineering & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1587

Case Number: CS(COMM) 598/2022

Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

[Read/Download order]