Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 7

Victoria Foods Private Limited v. Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.

In this case, the Plaintiff claimed to have originally conceived and adopted the trademark “Rajdhani” for food products, condiments, confectionary, etc. Through social media it found that the Defendants, engaged in the business of Indian Spices under the name of “Rajdhani Masale Co.” and “New Rajdhani Masala Co.” were using its trademark and labels on their products. Aggrieved by the same, Plaintiff filed a suit as well as an interim application seeking injunction against Defendants’ use of the impugned trademarks. On the other hand, the Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claims, and counterclaimed to be the prior user. The Delhi High Court heard the plea for ad-interim relief on the grounds of ownership, prior use, deceptive similarity and delay in approaching the court. The Court observed that, the Plaintiff was the prior user and registered owner of the trademark and was ‘first in the market’ to use it. Moreover, while comparing the Court noted that the Defendants’ trademarks were deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trademark, use of which would further infringe Plaintiff’s rights. Further the Court pointed that delay per se was not sufficient to disentitle the Plaintiff of interim relief. The court concluded that the Plaintiff was successful in establishing a prima facie case in its favour and hence granted the interim order restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff’s trademark.

Citation: Victoria Foods Private Limited vs Rajdhani Masala Co. & Anr.  Decided by Delhi High Court on 1st September, 2021, available at:, visited on 3rd September, 2021.

Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd v. Sunil Keshavji Tataria

 The Plaintiff, Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Sunil Keshavji Tataria from infringement of Plaintiff’s registered trade mark, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of trademarks, damages, rendition of accounts. The Defendant was engaged in the manufacture and sale of adult diapers and underpads sold online through domain / website which infringed the Plaintiff’s registered trademark “Tata”. The subject matter of the suit was amicably resolved in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. Since the dispute inter se parties stand resolved prior to commencing of pleadings, the Court found that the Plaintiff was entitled to refund of entire court fees.

Citation:  Tata Sons Private Limited v. Sunil Keshavji Tataria & Anr. Decided by Delhi High Court on 31 August, 2021 availabale at: Tata Sons Private Limited vs Sunil Keshavji Tataria & Anr. on 31 August, 2021 ( visited on 03.09.2021.

Prince Pipes And Fittings Limited vs Prince Platinum Pipes And Fittings

The Plaintiff, Prince Pipes uses the mark “PRINCE” in conjunction with a crown device as a registered trade mark in relation to its PVC pipe products. The adoption of the mark itself goes back to 1996. The Plaintiff has obtained a series of registrations from 2014 onwards of the “PRINCE” mark and logo. The goods have been described by the Plaintiff as “Piping Systems”. The PRINCE mark is prominently displayed on every unit or segment of the supplied products. The defendant, Prince Platinum Pipes was using “PRINCE PLATINUM” to trade the goods and also created a website with domain name “” for trading the goods similar to plaintiff. Deceived by the advertisement of defendant, one of the dealers of plaintiff sent a communication on 4th January, asking for their platinum products. The plaintiff claims that such communication is a strong prima facie material showing that actual deception and confusion has in fact already taken place and anyone would be lured into believing that the PRINCE platinum product is in fact from the house of the Plaintiff. The court gave interim orders and restrained defendant from using the impugned trade mark “PRINCE PLATINUM”, the impugned domain name “” and/or impugned business name “Prince Platinum Pipe & Fittings” and/or any other impugned mark/domain name/business name/trading style containing the word PRINCE and/or any other trade mark, domain name or business name/trading style identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark “PRINCE” in respect of plaintiff’s business. The court also appointed a court receiver as the receiver of defendants’ goods, stamps, printing materials, labels, brochures, pamphlets, flyers, advertising material, papers, stationery, printed matter, things and such material and documents of the Defendants bearing or containing the impugned trade mark “PRINCE PLATINUM”.

Citation: Prince Pipes & Fittings Limited vs Prince Platinum Pipes & Fittings decided  by Bombay High Court, on 10 March, 2021 available at: Prince Pipes & Fittings Limited vs Prince Platinum Pipes & Fittings, visited on 09.09.2021.

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021

Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 1
Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 2
Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 3
Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 4
Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 5
Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 6

This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department.

About BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department

BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions.

Updates on recent orders and judgments are brought to you jointly by the Entertainment Law and Consulting/Strategy Divisions of BananaIP Counsels, a Top ranked IP Firm in India. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected]  with the subject: Trademark Judgements


Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to [email protected]  for corrections and take down.

Leave a comment