Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Jangeer Singh Trading (plaintiff) seeking a permanent injunction restraining Yogesh Jangid Trading (defendant) from infringing and passing off the plaintiff’s trademark seeking claims for rendition of accounts and damages. Amit Bansal, J., held tha the defendant, during the pendency of the suit, shall not use the mark ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’ and ‘JANGID’ on a stand-alone basis and shall only use the device mark exactly in the same manner for which he has been granted registration in classes 7 and 35.
The plaintiff is a sole proprietorship firm engaged in the marketing, manufacturing, and sale of agricultural implements. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted the trademark ‘JANGEER’ on 01-01-1984 and has continuously used it since then. The plaintiff also obtained a trademark registration for the device mark ‘JANGEER’ in Class 7, effective from 13-09-2013, with a user claim dating back to 01-01-1984. The plaintiff’s products are sold through various platforms, including its website and e-commerce portals such as TradeIndia and IndiaMart.
The defendant is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading agricultural implements under the trademarks ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’. The defendant claimed that the surname ‘JANGID’ was adopted by his family in 1980 and has been continuously used in business. The defendant’s father originally used the trade name ‘Jangid Krishi Engineering Works’ in relation to agricultural implements. The defendant started his own business under ‘Jangid Agro Engineering’ in 2011 and has obtained trademark registrations for ‘JANGID’ in Class 7 and 35.
The plaintiff filed the present suit, contending that the defendant’s use of ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR’ was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark ‘JANGEER’ and caused confusion in the market. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s trademarks were being used for identical goods, thereby constituting infringement and passing off. The plaintiff further pointed out that the defendant had filed multiple trademark applications for ‘JANGID’ and ‘JANGIR,’ many of which had been refused or were pending. The suit sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from using these marks.
The defendant countered that he was a bona fide prior user of the mark ‘JANGID’ and was entitled to use his surname in business under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He also argued that since both parties held registered trademarks, an action for infringement was not maintainable under Sections 28(3) and 30(2)(e) of the Act.
The Court noted that both the plaintiff and the defendant were using their respective surnames as trademarks and both had obtained trademark registrations. Under Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e) of the Trade Marks Act, an action for infringement was not maintainable when both parties held registered trademarks. However, the Court proceeded to examine the case for passing off.
The Court relied on precedent, including S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683, which outlined that a passing off action required proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. The Court also referred to Precious Jewels v. Varun Gems, (2015) 1 SCC 160, where the Supreme Court upheld the bona fide use of a surname in trade under Section 35 of the Act.
Examining the documentary evidence, the Court found that the defendant’s father had indeed been using ‘JANGID’ in trade since at least 1984. Documents such as SSI certificates, BIS certifications, sales invoices, and tax records corroborated this claim. The defendant had also produced records showing his own use of ‘JANGID’ since 2011. Based on this, the Court concluded that the defendant was a bona fide user of his surname in trade and was entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Court remarked that “there is a difference in spelling of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant. 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 added features in the defendant’s mark make it quite distinct from the plaintiff’s mark. 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.”
Additionally, a comparison of the trademarks revealed that ‘JANGEER’ and ‘JANGID’ were visually and phonetically distinct, with significant differences in spelling and presentation. The Court opined that these distinctions were sufficient to avoid consumer confusion. The plaintiff’s claim that the defendant was intentionally passing off his goods was therefore not substantiated.
The Court ruled that the defendant was entitled to use the name ‘JANGID’ in a bona fide manner. However, to prevent market confusion, the defendant was directed not to use ‘JANGIR’ or ‘JANGEER’ and to use ‘JANGID’ only in the specific device form for which he had obtained registration.
[Jangeer Singh Trading v Yogesh Jangid Trading, CS(COMM) 598/2022, decided on 11-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Vikas Khera, Mr. Rohit and Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raghav Nagar, Mr. Rishab Nagar and Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocates
