BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.30(2)

Section 30(2), Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Bombay High Court, the Delhi High Court and 1 other court applying Trade Marks Act s.30(2), from 2024–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
3courts
2024–2026years

Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd. v. Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 42036 of 2025

Bombay High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and the injunction restraining use of the Kataria name, domain and corporate name set aside. The Division Bench found the fields of operation distinct, one party trading in insurance brokerage and the other in insurance of gems and jewellery, with no overlap and therefore no infringement under section 29. It weighed the continuous use of Kataria as a surname by a group of companies trading on goodwill built by predecessors, and the serious prejudice that restraining that use would cause. An undertaking not to enter the gems and jewellery insurance business was held sufficient to meet the apprehension raised. Whether the use was bona fide, continuous and prior remains for trial.

Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors., FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2024

Delhi High Court · Allowed

Appeal allowed and an interim injunction granted restraining use of "Lotus Splash" and other Lotus derivative marks for cosmetics and beauty products. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the dominant feature test, overall similarity and the perspective of the average consumer as explained by the Supreme Court in Pernod Ricard, the Division Bench held that an injunction was warranted at the prima facie stage. It disagreed with the Single Judge that the respondents' use fell within the exception in section 30(2)(a).

S.V.T Products v. S.S Pandian and Sons

Karnataka High Court · Dismissed

Appeal dismissed and the interim injunction restraining use of SVT HOTEL SPECIAL for asafoetida confirmed. A registered mark is prima facie valid under section 31, and to displace that at the interlocutory stage the defendant must show that the registration is ex facie impermissible or was granted in gross violation of the Act, a high threshold not met here. Whether HOTEL SPECIAL merely denotes the intended purpose of bulk sale to hoteliers, and so attracts section 30, is a matter of evidence and not a ground to refuse an injunction against a mark registered after ten years of use. The defendant's use of the registered symbol on an unregistered mark supported the restraint against passing off. The trial court's reasoning that a claim of prior use amounted to an admission of distinctiveness was wrong, but did not warrant interference given the limited scope of Order XLIII Rule 1.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

All 233 judgments on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Search the IP Case Digest