Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar, on October 13, 2025, upheld an interim injunction restraining Sabu Trade Private Limited and certain family members, also its directors from using the “Sachamoti” trademark associated with sabudana products. Affirming the March 2024 order of a Single Judge, the Bench recognized the prima facie right of Rajkumar Sabu, a former director of STPL and the registered proprietor, as the prior user of the mark. The dispute stems from competing family claims over ownership and use of the “Sachamoti” label, with the Court maintaining the injunction to protect the integrity of the registered mark pending the final resolution of the underlying suits.

The dispute arises from two connected appeals filed against the common order dated 05.03.2024 of the Delhi High Court, whereby the learned Single Judge granted an interim injunction in favour of Rajkumar Sabu and against the appellants regarding the trademark “SACHAMOTI” and its associated label. The litigation concerns two suits involving competing claims of proprietorship, prior use, and registration of the mark.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Pulls Up Civic Bodies Over “Appalling” Lack Of Sewage, Drainage In 27 Industrial Areas; Summons Top Officials To Fix Accountability

The respondent obtained an ex parte injunction on 10.06.2016, which was confirmed on 22.01.2019. Meanwhile, the appellants had filed original suit before the Principal District Judge, Salem. Upon appeals, the Supreme Court, by order dated 18.07.2019, transferred the Salem suit to the Delhi High Court, revived the parties’ interim applications, and set aside both the earlier Delhi High Court injunction and the Madras High Court order.

The appellants claim adoption and continuous use of “SACHAMOTI” since 1984 through Sabu Traders, later merged into Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. They rely on an AGMARK certificate dated 19.07.1993, historic sales, press coverage, government notices, and a recipe contest video where the respondent allegedly acknowledged their ownership. The appellants further assert that the respondent was only their distributor and that his trademark registrations of 2003 and 2006 were obtained without disclosure and in breach of fiduciary duties.

The respondent contends that “SACHAMOTI” was adopted in 1982 by his mother, Chandrakanta Sabu, who transferred the rights to him in 1997, making him proprietor of Shiv Trading Co. He relies on trademark registrations, a copyright registration, affidavits, advertisements, and an invoice of 03.02.1983 showing use of the mark. He disputes the appellants’ prior user claim, characterises their documents as forged, and highlights admissions allegedly made by them in earlier communications.

The Court recorded that “the challenge in these appeals is primarily to the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 05.03.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has decided two applications” and that the order dated 22.03.2024 directed “that the position that emerges and obtaining prior to 05.03.2024… shall prevail.”

Regarding appellants’ claims, the Court noted submissions that the respondent “was aware of the appellant’s use and ownership of the trade mark for the last 30 years” and that “the appellants have been using the trade mark since the date of incorporation of STPL i.e., 05.05.1993.”

The Court recorded the argument that the appellants relied on documents such as the “AGMARK certification dated 19.07.1993,” assessment proceedings, and advertisements, and that the respondent’s affidavit of 08.06.2016 was alleged to be “fake, created a day prior to the listing of the suit.”

The Court further noted the appellants’ contention that the respondent “has taken a vacillating stance with respect to his date of use,” relying on claims of adoption in 1982, 1997, and 2000 in different documents.

Recording the respondent’s case, the Court stated that he claimed proprietorship through “Shiv Trading Co., established in 1972 under the proprietorship of Chandrakanta Sabu” and that “in 1982, the trade marks ‘SACHAMOTI’ and ‘CHAKRA’ were adopted by Chandrakanta Sabu.”

The Court quoted the respondent’s assertion that “complete right, title and interest in the trade mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ was transferred… in 1997.” It also recorded the documentary supports including “registration certificate No.1169859” and copyright No. A-103337/2013.

The Court recorded that the respondent disputed the appellants’ documents, stating the invoices filed by them “mention ‘tapioca sago common’ and no trade mark has been mentioned,” and that not a single invoice shows sale under “SACHAMOTI” before 2016.

It also recorded the respondent’s allegation that the appellants’ products were found “substandard” by the Food Safety Department.

The Court stated: “we have dismissed the appeals” and clarified that “the rights between the parties need to be decided by the Trial Court”. It further directed that “any observations made in paragraphs 12 and 20 of the order dated 22.03.2024 shall be subject to the final outcome of the decision in the suits. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.”

Regarding C.M. APPL. No. 23757/2025, the Court reproduced the prayers seeking to “Vacate/Set-aside the direction of status quo ante passed on 22.03.2024” and to “direct the Appellants to comply with the Impugned Order dated 05.03.2024 and restrain the Appellants…” from using the mark “Sachamoti” in various forms. “In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeals, this application has become infructuous.”.

Also Read: Counsel Must Refrain Once Bench Indicates Its Mind as Continued Insistence Affects Decorum : Supreme Court Deletes Remarks and Cost Against State Election Commission

The Court recorded that in C.M. APPL. No. 55947/2024, filed seeking to place on record a certified copy of a registered Will dated 08.02.2016, “appropriate shall be for the respondent to file such an application before the learned Single Judge, who is seized of the suits, for consideration and decision. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.”

For C.M. APPL. No. 18111/2024, the Court issued the direction: “In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeals, this application has become infructuous.”.

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lalltaksh Joshi, Mr. Luv Virmani, Ms. Ananya Sanjiv Saraogi, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Chander Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Ms. Samridhi Bhatt, and Ms. Ananya Mohan, Advocates.

Case Title: Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Rajkumar Sabu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9025-DB
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 61/2024 & 62/2024
Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao; Justice Vinod Kumar