BARDANA SUPER HI TECH AGRO TONIC PRIVATE LIMITED vs AMCONS IPL (AGRO INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR


Reserved on: 11.09.2026
Pronounced on: 06.11 .2026
Uploaded on: 06.11 .2026
Whether the operative part or full judgment is
pronounced: Full


FAO(D) No. 17/2026

CM No. 5943/2026
Cav No. 1632/2026


Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro
Tonic Pvt. Ltd.
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


Through: Mr. Danish Majeed, Adv.
Q
Vs


Amcons IPL(Agro Industrial
Expansion) Pvt. Ltd. and others
.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Shariq J. Reyaz, Adv.



Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE




JUDGMENT


SANJAY DHAR-J
1. The appellant-company has called in question order dated 11.07.2026 passed
by the learned Commercial Court (Principal District Judge), Pulwama
(hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), whereby application of the
appellant/plaintiff for grant of interim relief in terms of Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure(for short the Code) has been
dismissed.
2. It appears that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the
defendants/respondents before Commercial Division of this Court seeking
the following reliefs:

“a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendants, their directors, partners,
proprietors, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists,
retailers, representatives and all other persons acting for and on
their behalf or in concert with them, restraining them from
manufacturing, processing, packaging, labelling, re-labelling,
advertising, promoting, displaying, offering for sale, selling,
distributing or in any manner dealing in fertilizers, manures or
allied goods under the impugned mark “SUPER AGRO-TECH”
or any other mark, label, packaging, trade dress, get-up or
artistic work which is identical with, deceptively similar to,
confusingly similar to or colourably imitative of the Plaintiff's
marks, labels, packaging, trade dress and artistic works,
including but not limited to “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO
TONIC”, “HI-TECH AGRO TONIC”, “BARDANA SUPER
HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” and allied marks;
b) Pass a decree of permanent injunction for passing off
restraining the Defendants and all persons acting on their behalf
from passing off or enabling others to pass off their goods as
and for the goods of the Plaintiff, or in any manner
misrepresenting or suggesting a connection, association,
sponsorship or trade origin with the Plaintiff, by use of the
impugned mark “SUPER AGRO-TECH”, packaging, colour
scheme, layout, apple imagery, logo placement, central brand
panel, border treatment or any other deceptively similar trade
dress;
c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining
infringement of copyright in the Plaintiff's artistic works
embodied in its packaging, labels, trade dress, get-up, layout,
colour combination, visual composition and overall
presentation, by restraining the Defendants from reproducing,
publishing, using or exploiting any artwork, label, packaging or
get-up which is a reproduction or substantial imitation of the
Plaintiff's artistic work;

d) Pass a decree directing the Defendants to immediately cease
and desist from all acts of infringement, passing off, trade dress
piracy and unfair competition and to forthwith withdraw from
the market all goods, packaging, labels, cartons, wrappers,
promotional material and all other infringing material bearing
the impugned mark “SUPER AGRO-TECH” and trade dress;
e) Pass a decree directing delivery-up, seizure and destruction of
all infringing material in the possession, custody or control of
the Defendants, including but not limited to finished goods,
semi-finished goods, labels, pouches, wrappers, cartons,
packaging material, stickers, printing blocks, plates, moulds,
dies, cylinders, artworks, stationery, promotional literature,
advertisements, electronic data and digital material bearing the
impugned mark “SUPER AGRO-TECH” or trade dress, or used
in relation to the manufacture, packaging, promotion or sale of
the impugned goods;
f) Pass a decree directing the Defendants to render true and
faithful accounts of all profits earned by them from the
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
2
of
17

manufacture, sale and distribution of the impugned goods and,
upon such rendition of accounts, pass a decree in favour of the
Plaintiff for the amount so found due, along with interest
thereon;
g) In the alternative to the relief of rendition of accounts, pass a
decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for
damages quantified at Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores
only) or such higher amount as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
h) Pass a decree awarding punitive and exemplary damages in
favour of the Plaintiff, having regard to the dishonest, mala fide
and deliberate conduct of the Defendants in adopting and
continuing the impugned mark and trade dress even after receipt
of legal notice, so as to deter such unlawful conduct in future;
i) Pass an order directing the Defendants to disclose on oath the
complete particulars of their manufacture, stock, sales,
distribution network, dealer lists, promotional material, digital
advertising, accounts, invoices, books of account, GST records
and all other documents relating to the impugned goods;
j) Pass an order for appointment of a Local Commissioner, with
such powers as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, to visit the
premises of the Defendants and/or their agents, stockists,
distributors or any other place where infringing goods or
material is suspected to be stored or manufactured, for the
purpose of inspection, search, inventory, seizure, sealing and
preservation of infringing goods, packaging material, labels,
blocks, dies, machines, electronic records and all other material
connected with the impugned goods;
k) Pass an order restraining the Defendants from disposing of,
alienating, transferring or parting with possession of any
infringing goods, packaging material, labels, accounts or assets
connected with the impugned activities during the pendency of
the present proceedings;
l) Pass an order directing the Defendants to remove and take
down all infringing content, advertisements, listings,
promotional material and digital representations from online
platforms, websites, social media and any other electronic
medium under their control;
m) Award costs of the present suit in favour of the Plaintiff and
against the Defendants;
n) Pass such other and further order(s), decree(s) or direction(s)
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice.”
3. Alongwith the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking various interim reliefs, which are
reproduced as under:
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
3
of
17

“a) Allow the present application under Order XXXIX Rules 1
& 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;

b) Pass an order of ad interim/temporary injunction restraining
the Defendants, their directors, proprietors, officers, servants,
agents, distributors, stockists, retailers, representatives and all
other persons acting for and on their behalf or in concert with
them from manufacturing, processing, packaging, labelling, re-
labelling, advertising, promoting, displaying, offering for sale,
selling, distributing or in any manner dealing in fertilizers,
manures or allied goods under the impugned mark “SUPER
AGRO-TECH” or any other mark, label, packaging, trade dress,
get-up or artistic work which is identical with, deceptively
similar to, confusingly similar to or colourably imitative of the
Plaintiff’s marks, labels, packaging, trade dress and artistic
works, including but not limited to “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO
TONIC”, “HI-TECH AGRO TONIC”, “BARDANA SUPER
HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” and allied marks;

c) Pass an order of ad interim/temporary injunction restraining
the Defendants from passing off or enabling others to pass off
their goods as and for the goods of the Plaintiff, or from in any
manner misrepresenting or suggesting any connection,
association, sponsorship, source or trade origin with the Plaintiff
by use of the impugned mark, packaging, colour scheme, layout,
apple imagery, logo placement, central brand panel, border
treatment or any other deceptively similar trade dress;

d) Pass an order of ad interim/temporary injunction restraining
the Defendants from reproducing, publishing, using or
exploiting any artwork, label, packaging, get-up, layout, colour
combination, visual composition or overall presentation which is
a reproduction or substantial imitation of the Plaintiff’s artistic
works embodied in its packaging and labels;

e) Direct the Defendants to preserve intact, and not to remove,
alienate, transfer, part with possession of, conceal, destroy or
dissipate any infringing goods, packaging material, labels,
cartons, wrappers, stickers, printing blocks, plates, moulds, dies,
cylinders, machines, artworks, stationery, advertisements,
accounts, invoices, electronic data, digital material and all other
instruments or media connected with the manufacture, storage,
promotion, distribution or sale of the impugned goods;

f) Direct the Defendants to maintain and preserve complete
accounts and records of manufacture, stock, sales, invoices,
distribution network, dealer lists, digital advertising and all
documents relating to the impugned goods, and not to tamper
with, alter or destroy the same during the pendency of the suit;

g) Direct the Defendants to forthwith remove and take down all
infringing advertisements, listings, promotional material and
digital representations from online platforms, websites, social
media and any other electronic medium under their control,
pending disposal of the suit;

FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
4
of
17

h) Pass such other and further ad interim order or orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

4. The Commercial Division of this Court vide ex parte interim order dated
25.03.2026 restrained the defendants, their directors, proprietors, officers,
servants, agents, distributors, stockists, retailers, representatives from
manufacturing, processing, packaging, labelling, re-labelling, advertising,
promoting, displaying, offering for sale, selling, distributing or in any
manner dealing in fertilizers, manures, or allied goods under the impugned
mark “SUPER AGRO-TECH”. The defendants were also restrained from
passing off or enabling others to pass off their goods as goods of the
plaintiff.
5. The defendants/respondents entered their appearance and raised a
preliminary objection to the maintainability of the suit, on the ground that the
suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff before the concerned
Commercial Court instead of filing the same directly before the Commercial
Division of the High Court. In this regard, the defendants placed reliance
upon the provisions contained in section 15 of the Code. The Commercial
Division of this Court vide its order dated 24.04.2026, upheld the objection
raised by the defendants and exercised its power under section 24 of the
Code directing transfer of the suit to Commercial Court (Principal District
Judge), Pulwama. It was made clear in the said order that the transferee court
would be free to vacate/modify or confirm the interim order(s) passed by
Commercial Division of this Court. It seems that the aforesaid order was
challenged by the plaintiff before the Supreme Court through the medium of
Special Leave of Appeal(C) No.17959 of 2026, but the same came to be
dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.05.2026. In these
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
5
of
17

circumstances, the suit came to be transferred to the learned trial court for its
disposal in accordance with law.
6. The case set up by the plaintiff in its plaint, in brief, is that it is engaged in
the research, development, formulation and commercialization of agro-tonic
and organic manure products since the year 2001. According to the plaintiff,
around the year 2011, their products came to be actively marketed and dealt
with in the trade under the distinctive expression including “HI-TECH
AGRO TONIC” and “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC”. It has been
averred that incorporation of the plaintiff-company in the year 2017
represents a mere formalization, consolidation and expansion of already
existing and well-established line of business, and does not mark the
commencement of use of the said marks. Thus, the rights of the plaintiff are
stated to have been founded upon prior adoption, prior use and continuous
commercial exploitation of the marks over a long period of time, much prior
to the defendants’ impugned adoption and as such its rights are superior and
enforceable in law.
7. It is further case of the plaintiff that its good are sold under and in relation to
the distinctive marks, labels, packaging, artistic works and trade dress
adopted and developed over time, including inter alia the marks “SUPER
HI-TECH AGRO TONIC”, “HI-TECH AGRO TONIC, BARDANA SUPER
HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” and other cognate and associated label/device
marks form part of its commercial identity, all of which have been
continuously used, promoted and commercially exploited in the course of
trade.
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
6
of
17

8. It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that its products, particularly its
distinctive apple themed packaging bearing the prominent expression “HI-
TECH AGRO TONIC”/ “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC”, red and
yellow colour scheme, crown like logo placement, central brand panel, apple
imagery and distinctive border treatment, have over the years acquired
substantial goodwill, recognition and source identifying significance in the
market. It is further case of the plaintiff that it is the proprietor of various
registered trademarks and label/device marks. According to the plaintiff, it is
registered proprietor of Trade Mark Registration Nos. 4151497 in Class-I in
respect of fertilizers and allied goods. It has also relied upon registration
bearing Nos. 461531 and 461531 in Class 35. Apart from the aforesaid
registrations, applications for certain associated marks and label/device of
the plaintiff are stated to be pending at different stages before the Trade
Marks Registry, but independent of statutory protection, the plaintiff has
acquired formidable, prior, superior and enforceable common law rights by
virtue of prior adoption, prior user, long continuity in trade, established
goodwill, market presence and proprietary association attached to its marks,
labels, get-up, packaging and artistic features, in which copyright vests with
the plaintiff.
9. It has been alleged in the plaint that recently, it was discovered that the
defendants/respondents have dishonestly and mala fide commenced
manufacturing marketing, offering for sale, advertising and dealing in
fertiliser/manure products under the impugned mark “SUPER AGRO
TECH” under packaging under trade dress which is deceptively and
confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s marks, labels and overall trade dress.
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
7
of
17

According to the plaintiff, the defendants have used apple imagery and allied
design elements in a manner evocative of the plaintiff’s products.
10. The plaintiff in order to demonstrate that the defendants have copied and
appropriated its logo etc. has placed on record a comparative chart.
According to the plaintiff, the impugned mark adopted by the defendants,
namely, “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” is phonetically, structurally,
visually and commercially deceptive when considered in the context of the
plaintiff established mark “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” and HI-
TECH AGRO TONIC”. It has been contended that the defendants have not
merely copied a generic concept, but they have deliberately appropriated the
dominant and memorable commercial features of the plaintiff’s marks and
packaging so as to ride upon the goodwill, recognition and reputation built
by the plaintiff through years of honest use.
11. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the impugned action of the defendants
amounts to not only infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, but
it also amount to passing off plaintiff’s artistic copyright in the packaging
and labels, dilution of the plaintiff’s goodwill, unfair competition,
misrepresentation as to trade origin, source and commercial association, false
suggestion of connection with the plaintiff, misrepresentation to the trade
and public, and an unlawful attempt to pass off the defendants’ goods as
those of or connected with the plaintiff.
12. It has been submitted that the defendants have filed a trade mark application
bearing No. 5672748 for the mark “SUPER AGRO-TECH ORGANIC
FERTILISER” and/or allied deceptive variants, thereby clearly
demonstrating their intention to commercially appropriate, regularize and
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
8
of
17

institutionalize the infringing adoption. It is further averred that the plaintiff
has formerly opposed the defendants’ attempt to secure statutory registration
of the impugned mark by filing a Notice of Opposition dated 10.03.2026
before the Registrar of Trade Marks against the aforesaid application of the
defendants in Class-1. The plaintiff has also issued a detailed legal notice
dated 02.02.2024 along with the Notice of Opposition calling upon the
defendants to cease and desist from all infringing and passing off activities,
but the defendants instead of complying with the demands of the plaintiff,
have sent reply to their notice vide communication dated 05.02.2024, to
which a rejoinder was submitted by the plaintiff.
13. It is being contended that the defendants are not entitled in law to use the
impugned mark or any other mark, packaging, label, trade dress, artwork, get
up or presentation which is identical with, deceptively similar to the said
mark and the activities of the defendants have caused grave and irreparable
prejudice to the plaintiff and is suffering loss of market, dilution of brand
identity, erosion of distinctiveness, diversion of trade, unlawful
encroachment upon its goodwill, injury to commercial reputation and false
association of the defendants’ goods with those of the plaintiff.

14. According to the plaintiff, it was effecting sales in excess of 200 truckloads
of its products, but owing to the deceptive action of the defendants, the sale
of only about 50 truckloads has been conducted by the plaintiff during the
current season, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff. It has been submitted
that the plaintiff has already filed a criminal complaint before the Police
against the defendants for infringing its trade mark.
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
9
of
17

15. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. In their
written statement, the defendants submitted that the plaintiff has deliberately
attempted to create an illusion of exclusivity and monopoly over unregistered
marks, expressions, common trade elements, artistic features, descriptive
terminology and general market presentations, which are generic,
descriptive, common to trade and incapable of exclusive appropriation in
law. It has been submitted that the plaintiff has resorted to exercise the
selection of artistic comparison. It has been submitted that the plaintiff has
resorted to exaggeration, selective presentation and artificial comparison. It
has further been submitted that infringement arises only in respect of a valid
and registered trademark and not in respect of broad generalized unregistered
mark, commercial context or descriptive business expressions.
16. According to the defendants, the alleged marks “SUPER, HI-TECH, AGRO,
TECH, AGRO TONIC” and allied expressions are descriptive, laudatory,
generic and commonly prevalent in the fertilizer, pesticides and agricultural
goods market and no trader can claim exclusive ownership over such
ordinary commercial expressions. It has been submitted that the plaintiff has
failed to establish any deceptive similarity when the rival marks, labels and
packaging are compared as a whole. It has been submitted that over all visual
impression, trade identity, packaging style, commercial appearance, writing
pattern, artistic arrangement, trade source identification and market
presentation of the defendants are entirely separate, distinct and
distinguishable from that of the plaintiff and that the rival products are
capable of independent identification, as such, there exists no possibility of
confusion to any prudent purchaser. The defendants have contended that the
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
10
of
17

plaintiff has not placed on record any independent market survey, consumer
complaint, dealer statement, customer confusion material or credible
documentary evidence showing actual deception, actual diversion of trade or
actual misrepresentation attributable to the defendants. The plaintiff’s suit
cannot succeed on the basis of mere bald assertions.
17. It has been contended that the plaintiff has not disclosed any original artistic
work within the meaning of the copyright nor established the existence of
any exclusive copyright capable of enforcement against the defendants.
According to the defendants, ordinary packaging arrangements, common
layouts, generic artistic patterns, colour schemes and customary trade
features do not automatically confer copyright exclusively. It has been
submitted that the plaintiff has intentionally exaggerated the alleged losses,
damages and turnover figures without any supportive material. It has been
submitted that the plaintiff has not placed on record any material to support
its contention relating to use of the trademark, market reputation which is a
sine qua non in passing off claim.
18. It has also been submitted that the registered trade mark of the plaintiff is
restricted to Class-35, which deals with marketing etc. and that the main
registration under Class-1 is not only objected to, but in fact demonstrates
that the same pertains to be used in future and not actually used in ordinary
course. According to the defendants, there is no cause of action in favour of
the plaintiff.
19. Learned trial court, after analysing the pleadings and documents on record,
dismissed the application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
11
of
17

of the Code and vacated the ex parte interim order granted by the
Commercial Division of the High Court.
20. In the impugned order dated 11.07.2026, the learned trial court has observed
that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff on account of the
fact that it has failed to place on record any material to show that it has been
using the impugned mark “SUPER HI-TECH AGRO-TONIC and “SUPER
HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” on its products since the year 2001 as claimed by
it. It has been noted by the learned trial court that no invoices for the year
2001 to 2017 have been placed on record by the plaintiff to substantiate its
claim with regard to the user of the aforesaid mark since the year 2001. Thus,
the action of passing off projected against the defendants is prima facie not
tenable. Regarding the claim with regard to infringement of the trade mark,
the learned trial court has observed that no trade mark for the plaintiff’s
products has been registered as yet, even though he has applied for the same.
Therefore, it cannot maintain an action for infringement of an unregistered
trade mark in the face of provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section
27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
21. The appellant/plaintiff has challenged the impugned order passed by the
learned trial court, primarily on the grounds that the plaintiff has specifically
pleaded in the plaint about its user of the mark “AGRO HI-TECH AND
SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC” since the year 2001. Therefore, merely
because there were no documents placed on record by the plaintiff to show
user of the said mark by it for the aforesaid period, the assertions in this
regard ought not to have been rejected. It has been contended that the trial
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
12
of
17

court has conducted a mini trial while deciding temporary injunction
application, which is impressible in law.
22. It has been submitted that the learned trial court has erred in treating the
absence of the documentary evidence as legally conclusive. The plaintiff
should have been allowed to prove these assertions by an affidavit or
otherwise. It has also been contended that the learned trial court has erred in
applying the provisions contained in section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act to
the present case by ignoring that the plaintiff is registered proprietor of
registration No. 4151497 in Class-1 in respect of fertilizers and allied goods.
Besides this, the appellant has also relied upon the registration bearing Nos.
4615317 and 4615318 in Class- 35.
23. The appellant/plaintiff has also filed an application under Order XXVII and
Order LXI Rules 1(aa) and (b) read with Order LXIII Rule 2 of the Code
seeking leave of the court to produce additional documentary evidence in the
shape of copies of invoices for the period 2017-2018.
24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
25. In the instant case, the plaintiff is seeking an injunction against the
defendants on the basis of infringement of its trade mark right both under
common law as well as under the statute viz. “the Trade Marks Act”. In
order to succeed under common law, a plaintiff has to show that it has been
using a particular trademark for sufficiently long time, as a result of which,
it has built a reputation of its own and the said trade mark is associated
exclusively with the plaintiff in the relevant business. It has also to be shown
by the plaintiff that the defendants have started to use deceptively the same
trade mark or a trade mark, which is deceptively similar to the trademark of
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
13
of
17

the plaintiff, as a result of which, the defendants are passing off their goods
as those of the plaintiff, which in turn causes commercial and reputational
loss to the plaintiff.
26. It is a settled law that in an action for passing off the plaintiff has to show
that its goods or services have acquired a distinctiveness or public reputation
in the market. There must be an appreciable customer base or trade
connection associated with the name, mark, logo or trade dress. Thus, the
proof of prior user and local recognition is essential. Once the plaintiff is
able to show the aforesaid essentials, it has also to satisfy the Court that the
defendants have made a false representation intentionally or otherwise in the
course of trade to believe that the defendants’ goods/services are those of the
plaintiff or are connected/associated with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also
to show that misrepresentation of the defendants has caused or is likely to
cause economic or reputational injury which can manifest in the shape of
loss of sales or diversion of customers, brand dilution or damage to
reputation through association with an inferior product or service.
27. Let us now analyse whether the plaintiff has been able to show that its goods
have acquired a distinctive or public reputation in the market. In this regard,
bald assertions made in the plaint to the effect that plaintiff’s goods have
acquired distinctiveness and good reputation in the market, are not supported
by any material on record. The plaintiff claims that it has been in the
business since 2001, even though it has been incorporated in the year 2017,
and that right from the year 2011, it has been using the mark in question on
its products. Not even a single document has been placed on record by the
plaintiff to show that it has been using the mark in question on its products
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
14
of
17

since the year 2011 as claimed by it. Neither any invoice nor any balance
sheet or any business related record to show that the plaintiff was using the
relevant mark on its products for a considerable period of time or that it has
been able to capture substantial amount of business in the market for any
period of time, has been placed on record by the plaintiff.
28. While deciding whether a plaintiff has a prima facie case in its favour, the
court is expected to analyse not only the pleadings but also the documents
which may be placed on record by the parties to support the pleadings. In the
instant case, the plaintiff has not placed on record any document to support
its assertion with regard to the long and continuous use of the mark in
question on its products. In fact, the plaintiff has not placed on record any
document to show that it has been in business prior to the year 2017. Thus,
the learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no
prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff so far as his claim relating to action
of passing off is concerned.
29. That takes us to the claim of the plaintiff based upon infringement of trade
mark. The documents on record show that the trade mark of the plaintiff in
respect of its products “AGRO HI-TECH AND SUPER HI-TECH AGRO
TONIC” has not been registered as yet. Though the plaintiff has applied for
the same, its application stands objected to. Without registration of trade
mark in respect of its products, the plaintiff cannot sustain action against the
defendants for infringement of its trade mark. The plaintiff may have
obtained registration of its trade mark under Class-35 which covers
advertising, business management, business administration and office
functions, but it has not obtained registration of trade mark in respect of its
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
15
of
17

products as yet. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek action for infringement
of its unregistered trade mark. The same is clearly barred under section 27(1)
of the Trade Mark Act.
30. As has already been noted, the plaintiff has filed an application seeking
permission to place on record additional evidence at appellate stage. Even if,
the documents that have placed on record by the plaintiff at the appellate
stage are taken into consideration, the same do not enhance the case of the
plaintiff. This is so because, the documents sought to be placed on record
pertain to only two years 2017 and 2018. An action for passing off can be
maintained against the defendants only, if the plaintiff is able to show usage
of relevant mark for a sufficiently long period. Usage of the mark for a
couple of years only would not mature into the acquisition of distinctiveness
or public reputation in the market. Therefore, even if the documents placed
on record by the plaintiff are taken into consideration, it will have not any
effect upon the outcome of the case.
31. It is a settled law that scope of interference by appellate court with an interim
order passed under Order XXXI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code is very limited
and restricted. When a trial court has exercised its discretion and equitable
jurisdiction to grant or refuse injunction, the jurisdiction of the appellate
court to interfere is very limited. It is only when the appellate court is
satisfied that the trial court has acted arbitrarily or contrary to law or that
findings of the trial court are perverse or capricious, palpably incorrect and
are wholly untenable that it would be open to the appellate court to interfere
with the discretion exercised by the trial court.
FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
16
of
17

32. In the present case, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the order
passed by the learned trial court. Therefore, it is not open to this Court to
interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned trial court, which in the
instant case, has been exercised against the plaintiff/appellant.
33. For all what has been stated, analysed and discussed hereinabove, we do not
find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed, accordingly.

(SANJAY DHAR) (SINDHU SHARMA)
JUDGE JUDGE

Jammu
06.11.2026

Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

FAO(D) No. 17/
2026 Page
17
of
17