Pranav B Prem

A Delhi Commercial Court has barred a Tripura-based trader from using the brand name “Goldey”, holding that it is deceptively similar to “Goldiee”, the registered trademark of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., a well-known Indian spice manufacturer. The order was passed by District Judge (Commercial)-03, South, Saket Courts, Sandeep Yadav on October 25, 2025, after the defendant failed to appear despite being duly served with summons, leading the court to proceed ex parte.

Also Read: NCLT Mumbai: Sterling Biotech Cannot Reclaim Leased Land From Sterling Healthcare During Insolvency Moratorium

Background

The plaintiff, Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, has been manufacturing and marketing food products for human consumption — including spices, tea, and related goods — under the well-known ‘Goldiee’ brand since 1980. The mark “Goldiee” forms the house mark of the company and has been registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in various classes such as 30, 43, 35, 39, 32, and 31. The court noted that the company’s trademark registrations are valid and subsisting, having been renewed from time to time. The brand’s products are also exported to several countries, including Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the UAE, the USA, Canada, and Nepal, and its goods are available online through www.goldiee.com and www.goldieeonlinestore.com. The company placed on record detailed year-wise sales data, reflecting significant growth since 1987 and reaching over ₹7,692 crore in 2019–2020, evidencing the mark’s goodwill and market reputation.

Plaintiff’s Case

The plaintiff discovered in October 2021 that the defendant, Rama Biswas, proprietor of M/s DSK Group, had applied to register the trademark “Goldey” on a “proposed to be used” basis for similar goods such as tea, popcorn, and spices. The Registrar of Trademarks had already cited Goldiee’s registrations (Nos. 3677000, 696960, and 2776290 in Class 30) in its examination report, objecting to the defendant’s application. However, the defendant persisted with the application, falsely claiming that the marks were different and asserting that his use was honest and bona fide. The plaintiff contended that this act was a dishonest attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the defendant’s goods originated from or were associated with Goldiee Masale. It further submitted that the impugned trademark was visually, phonetically, and structurally identical to “Goldiee,” and that even the act of applying for such a trademark posed an imminent and grave threat to its brand’s reputation. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the mark “Goldey” or any deceptively similar name in relation to food products, along with costs.

Court’s Observations

The court observed that the defendant was duly served but failed to appear or file a written statement. Consequently, the testimony of PW-1 Nirmal Singh, who represented the plaintiff, went unchallenged and unrebutted. His deposition established that Goldiee Masale is the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark “Goldiee” and enjoys long-standing goodwill in the market. The court accepted the documentary evidence produced, including copies of trademark certificates, invoices, advertisements, sales figures, and the defendant’s trademark application.

Citing Coty Germany GMBH v. Xeryus Retail Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court, 2023), the Judge held that the unrebutted evidence must be deemed admitted when the defendant is ex parte. Judge Yadav also referred to Shree Rajmoti Industries v. Rajmoti Foods Products (2019 SCC OnLine Del 6956), which held that filing a trademark application demonstrates an intention to use the mark and constitutes a threat of infringement even if the goods have not yet entered the market.

Findings

The court found that the defendant’s trademark “Goldey” had “striking phonetic similarities” with the plaintiff’s “Goldiee.” It observed: “The impugned trademark GOLDEY has striking phonetic similarities with the trademark GOLDIEE of plaintiff. A consumer of ordinary prudence is likely to be misled by the impugned trademark of defendant believing it to be that of the plaintiff. Thus, the impugned trademark is deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion in the minds of consumers of average intelligence.”  The court further held that even though the defendant had not started using the mark, the act of filing the application itself was a clear indicator of intended use and warranted injunctive relief to prevent future infringement.

Also Read: Barmer Consumer Commission Orders South Eastern Railway To Pay ₹35,000 Compensation For Denying Paid Bedroll To Passenger

Decision

Allowing the suit, the court decreed the matter in favour of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. and granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using “Goldey” or any mark identical or deceptively similar to “Goldiee” for tea, popcorn, spices, or related goods. While the plaint did not contain a specific prayer for damages, the court noted the defendant’s failure to appear and cooperate, and therefore imposed costs of ₹5 lakh to be paid to the plaintiff within six weeks. The Delhi Commercial Court thus permanently restrained the Tripura-based trader from using “Goldey” or any similar mark, recognizing the deceptive similarity with “Goldiee” and protecting the plaintiff’s long-established brand and trademark rights.

Appearance

For the Plaintiff: Advocate Shravan Kumar Bansal

Cause Title: Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v. Rama Biswas

Case No: CS (DJ) 525/2021

Coram: Shri. Sandeep Yadav [District Judge (Commercial)]