Summary
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the registered proprietor of the word mark "SIYARAM" since 1986, filed suit to restrain Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited from using "Siyaram" in its corporate name and textile products. The Bombay High Court, deciding an interim motion in January 2026 after nearly eighteen years of proceedings, granted an injunction in Siyaram's favour. The court rejected all five defences Stanford Siyaram raised: prior use through an undocumented predecessor, a composite mark registration shield under Section 28(3), the unmonopolisability of a Hindu deity's name, absence of proved goodwill, and delay and acquiescence. The ruling confirms that a divine name, once it acquires distinctiveness through exclusive commercial use, is fully protectable as a registered trademark, and that dishonest adoption extinguishes whatever equitable defences a defendant might otherwise invoke.
Background
Eighteen years after its filing, this suit has produced its first interim ruling. The delay is partly a product of procedural complexity, but the substantive question has always been the same: can a name drawn from Hindu scripture, through decades of exclusive commercial use, become the exclusive trademark of a single enterprise?
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited (Siyaram) traces its use of the “Siyaram” mark to 1977, when its promoters entered the textile trade before the company’s formal incorporation in 1978. The trademark infringement and passing off suit, ultimately filed in 2008 was built on decades of brand-building: Siyaram grew into one of India’s largest producers of blended suiting and shirting, manufacturing over 30 million metres of fabric annually and achieving wide public recognition through sustained advertising and events such as “Siyaram’s Star Miss India.” Its earliest registration, for the “SIYARAMS” device mark, dates to October 1984; a word mark registration for “Siyaram” in Class 24 followed in December 1986. Multiple further registrations incorporating the mark have since been obtained, none of which Stanford Siyaram has challenged.
In June 2007, Siyaram learnt that Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited (Stanford Siyaram) had been incorporated in February 2006 and was operating in the textile sector under the composite mark “Apricott – a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.” Siyaram issued a cease and desist notice, which Stanford Siyaram denied receiving, and filed suit in January 2008 seeking an injunction against use of “Siyaram” in any form and claiming damages.
The case was beset by procedural complications: a Clause XIV defect in combining infringement and passing off claims, an abortive first notice of motion, a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and abandoned rectification proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Notice of Motion No. 22 of 2013 was eventually heard and decided by the Bombay High Court on 13 January 2026.
Issues
-
-
- Whether Stanford Siyaram’s use of “Siyaram” in its corporate name and composite mark constitutes infringement of Siyaram’s registered word mark under the Trade Marks Act
- Whether the same use amounts to passing off of Siyaram’s established goodwill and reputation
- Whether Stanford Siyaram could claim prior use through an alleged predecessor in the absence of any documented assignment of the mark and goodwill
- Whether Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, barred an infringement action given Stanford Siyaram’s own composite label registration
- Whether “Siyaram,” as a Hindu deity’s name, is incapable of monopolisation as a trademark
- Whether delay and acquiescence disentitled Siyaram to interim relief
-
Siyaram’s Arguments
-
-
- Siyaram’s unchallenged word mark registration since 1986 attracted a strong presumption of validity under the Full Bench ruling in Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson, which held that validity can only be questioned at the interlocutory stage where registration is shown to be ex facie illegal or fraudulent. Stanford Siyaram had done neither.
- The prior-use claim was untenable on three grounds: the store attributed to the father of Defendants No. 2 and 3 traded as “Mangaldeep Showroom” with “Siyaram Fashion Store” appearing only in brackets; it was a multi-brand outlet stocking Siyaram’s own products as an authorised dealer; and Defendant No. 1, incorporated only in February 2006, produced no documentation evidencing assignment of the mark or its goodwill.
- Section 28(3) provided no infringement defence: Stanford Siyaram held registration only for the composite label, not the word mark “SIYARAM.” Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, expressly withholds exclusivity over individual components of a composite mark. This precise argument had been rejected in Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. v. Shree Siyaram Fab Pvt. Ltd. (NM No. 3769 of 2011) and affirmed in Marico v. Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.
- Adoption was dishonest: Stanford Siyaram’s own material showed its predecessor selling Siyaram’s products as an authorised dealer before subsuming the entire word mark into its corporate name.
-
Stanford Siyaram’s Arguments
-
-
- Its composite label registration in Classes 24 and 42 triggered Section 28(3), limiting Siyaram to a passing-off action; Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. N. Ranga Rao and Sons Pvt. Ltd. was cited in support.
- Goodwill must be proved by cogent, independent material and cannot be presumed; the chartered accountant’s certificate was self-serving and insufficient.
- “Siyaram” is a widely used Hindu deity name; no monopoly can subsist over divine names, and the mark was common to the textile trade.
- A composite mark must be assessed as a whole; dissecting the label to isolate “Siyaram” is impermissible.
- Prolonged inaction, abandoned rectification proceedings, and repeated procedural lapses spanning more than a decade amounted to acquiescence, disentitling Siyaram to interim relief.
-
Court’s Analysis
The first thing that the court took into account was Siyaram’s unimpeached registrations, the earliest dating to 1984. Based on the ruling in Lupin Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson, the court confirmed that the presumption of validity attached to a registered trademark can only be displaced at the interlocutory stage where the registration is shown to be ex facie illegal, fraudulent, or of such a nature as to shock the conscience of the court. Stanford Siyaram had raised none of these objections. Siyaram therefore stood fully within the protection of the Trade Marks Act.
Prior Use Without Assignment Goes Nowhere
The prior-use defence unravelled under scrutiny of the Defendants’ own material. The store in question traded as “Mangaldeep Showroom,” with “Siyaram Fashion Store” appearing only in brackets. It stocked multiple well-known brands, including Vimal, Raymond, and Siyaram’s own products, as an authorised dealer, identifying it as a multi-brand retail outlet, not a business associated exclusively with the “Siyaram” name. Most critically, Defendant No. 1 was incorporated in February 2006, and no documentation evidencing any assignment of the mark or its goodwill was ever produced. Based on jurisprudence, the court reiterated that prior use through a predecessor is available only where the assignment is established by clear and reliable documentary evidence. In its absence, Stanford Siyaram’s adoption could be dated no earlier than February 2006, long after Siyaram’s 1986 registration had crystallised.
A Deity’s name is not Automatically in the Public Domain
The court declined to treat “Siyaram” as incapable of trademark protection merely because it is associated with a Hindu deity. Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, bars registration only of marks that are devoid of distinctive character or descriptive of the goods in question. “Siyaram” bears no descriptive nexus with textiles and has acquired distinctiveness through decades of exclusive commercial use. Each decision Stanford Siyaram relied upon – including Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries and OM Logistics Ltd. v. Mahendra Pandey was found distinguishable. In those cases, the mark was either unregistered or established as common to the trade. The court added that Stanford Siyaram was estopped from arguing non-distinctiveness at all, having itself sought registration of a mark incorporating “Siyaram.”
Section 28(3): No Cover in a Composite Registration
The Section 28(3) argument was rejected on two grounds. Stanford Siyaram held no registration for the word mark “SIYARAM” in isolation; its mark was the composite label “Apricott – a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd.” Section 17 makes clear that registration of a composite mark extends no exclusivity to its individual components. The court noted that this analysis had already been carried out in Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd. v. Shree Siyaram Fab Pvt. Ltd. and reaffirmed in Marico v. Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dishonest Adoption and the Irrelevance of Delay
On passing off, the court found Siyaram’s goodwill amply established through continuous use since 1977/1978, statutory registrations, sales data, and advertising expenditure certified by a chartered accountant. Stanford Siyaram’s own evidence proved decisive against it: invoices showed the predecessor store stocking and selling Siyaram’s products as an authorised dealer, making it impossible to simultaneously assert that Siyaram lacked goodwill or reputation. Stanford Siyaram then subsumed the entirety of the “Siyaram” word mark into both its corporate name and composite mark, trading in identical goods with full knowledge of the plaintiff’s established reputation. The adoption was plainly dishonest, and likelihood of confusion required no separate proof. On delay, the court held that acquiescence demands a positive act of encouragement by the plaintiff, not mere passage of time, and that dishonest adoption renders any delay argument academic.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Bombay High Court held that:
-
-
- Siyaram’s registrations, unchallenged and unimpeached, attract a strong presumption of validity; Siyaram is entitled to the full statutory protections of a registered proprietor under the Trade Marks Act.
- The prior-use defence fails for want of any documented assignment of the mark and goodwill; Stanford Siyaram’s adoption can be traced no earlier than its February 2006 incorporation.
- “Siyaram” is protectable as a registered trademark; its association with a Hindu deity does not render it incapable of monopolisation under Section 9, given the distinctiveness it has acquired through exclusive commercial use.
- Section 28(3) affords no infringement defence; Stanford Siyaram’s composite label registration confers no exclusivity over the individual word “Siyaram” under Section 17.
- Siyaram’s goodwill is established at the prima facie stage; Stanford Siyaram’s wholesale incorporation of the “Siyaram” word mark into its corporate name and composite mark, in identical goods and with full knowledge, constitutes passing off.
- Delay and acquiescence provide no shield where adoption is dishonest; acquiescence requires a positive act of encouragement by the plaintiff, which Siyaram never provided.
- The Notice of Motion is allowed; Stanford Siyaram is restrained from using “Siyaram” as part of its corporate or trading name or in relation to textile goods, in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
-
Case Citation: Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited & Ors., Notice of Motion No. 22 of 2013 in Commercial IP Suit No. 23 of 2008, Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), decided on 13 January 2026. Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127416116/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels