Jindal Composite Tubes Pvt Ltd & Anr. vs Baldev Krishan & Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 15.10.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010251522026
+ CS(COMM) 622/2026
JINDAL COMPOSITE TUBES PVT LTD & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
versus
BALDEV KRISHAN & ANR. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Nikhil Chawla and Ms. Mansha
Mehta, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Ms. Mahima Grover, Advocate for D1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 15409/2026 (U/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”), seeking
an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling,
offering for sale, advertising or in any manner using the Mark ‘GROJINDAL’
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 1 of 23

/ ‘GRO JINDAL’ / / / (“ Impugned
Mark ”) in relation to pipes and fittings and allied and cognate goods, on the
ground that the Impugned Mark is deceptively similar to the Marks of the
Plaintiffs, ‘JINDAL’ / / (“ JINDAL Family of Marks ”).
2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated on 10.03.2003, having its
registered office at Moti Nagar, New Delhi. Plaintiff No. 1 is engaged in the
business of manufacturing, trading and distributing various kinds of non-
metallic pipes and fittings, inter alia , MLC pipes and fittings, PVC pipes and
fittings, UPVC pipes and fittings, CPVC pipes and fittings, CPVC rigid pipes
and fittings, HDPE pipes and fittings, MDPE pipes and fittings, PE pipes and
fittings and PPR-C pipes and fittings, falling in Classes 17 and 19 (“ Plaintiffs’
Goods ”), under the JINDAL Family of Marks. Plaintiff No. 1 has authorised
its sister concern, Plaintiff No. 2, to use the JINDAL Family of Marks in the
course of its business since its inception in 2005.
3. Defendant No. 1 is the sole proprietor of M/s Goyal Polymers , having
its address at Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab, and is engaged in the business
of manufacturing and marketing plastic pipes, flexible hose pipes of plastic,
pipe fittings (non-metallic) and fittings (non-metallic) for flexible pipes
(“ Impugned Goods ”) under the Impugned Mark. Defendant No. 2 is a
distributor in Jalandhar, Punjab, selling and offering for sale the Impugned
Goods.
4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that, at a market survey conducted in
Jalandhar in the last week of February 2026, the Plaintiffs became aware that
PVC pipes bearing the Impugned Mark were being stocked, distributed and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 2 of 23

sold in the market. The Plaintiffs procured an invoice dated 27.02.2026 issued
by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 for the sale of the Impugned Goods.
The Plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 12.03.2026 calling upon Defendant
No. 1 to cease and desist from using the Impugned Mark and to withdraw its
Trade Mark Application Nos. 4671927 and 7576208 for the Impugned Mark.
Defendant No. 1, by its reply dated 23.03.2026, denied the allegations of
infringement and passing off, claiming that the Impugned Mark was
independently and honestly adopted and has been in continuous use since
26.10.2020. Hence, the present Suit has been filed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS
5. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following submissions:
5.1. The Plaintiffs are restricting the claim in the present Suit to
infringement of the registered trade marks of Plaintiff No. 1 and
are not pressing the claim for passing off.
5.2. In the year 2001, Plaintiff No. 1, through its predecessor, Ms.
Sudha Agarwal, trading as Chandi Poly Tubes , with honest and
bona fide intentions, conceived and adopted the Mark ‘JINDAL’
(word) for PVC pipes, bends and joints. Ms. Sudha Agarwal filed
Trade Mark Application No. 1018169 for the Mark ‘JINDAL’
(word) with user claim from 01.04.2001, which subsequently
attained registration, and the said Mark, along with the goodwill
and reputation therein, was assigned in favour of Plaintiff No. 1.
In 2003, Mr. Arvind Jindal, promoter and director of Plaintiff
No. 1, adopted the device Mark , consisting of the word
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 3 of 23

‘JINDAL’ inscribed in white on a green background, for HDPE
pipes, MDPE pipes and PE pipes, and obtained registration under
Trade Mark Application No. 1165594 with user claim from
06.01.2003. The said Mark, along with the goodwill and
reputation therein, was assigned to Plaintiff No. 1 by an
assignment deed dated 16.08.2021. Plaintiff No. 1 also adopted
the label in relation to its business.
5.3. Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the Mark ‘JINDAL’
(word) under Registration No. 1018169 in Class 17 for “ P.V.C
Pipes, Bend and Joint Being Goods Included in Class 17 For
Sale in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh ”, renewed up
to 19.06.2031, and the device Mark under Registration
No. 1165594 in Class 17 for “ Hi - Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE)
Pipes, Middle Density Poly Ethylene (MDPE) Pipes, Poly
Ethylene (PE) Pipes ”, limited to the colour green, renewed up to
10.01.2033 (collectively, “ Registered Marks ”).
Notwithstanding the rectification petitions filed by a third party
on 05.11.2022, which are pending before the Trade Marks
Registry and are being contested by Plaintiff No. 1, the
Registered Marks are valid, subsisting and in full legal force. The
Plaintiffs have also filed Trade Mark Application Nos. 2081454,
1442541 and 1682943 in Classes 17 and 19 for the JINDAL
Family of Marks, which are pending registration.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 4 of 23

5.4. Plaintiff No. 1 has been using the Mark ‘JINDAL’ (word) at least
since the year 2001. Plaintiff No. 1 is part of the D.S. Jindal
Group, which has a legacy spanning over five decades in Indian
industry, and the Plaintiffs honestly and bona fide use the Mark
‘JINDAL’, which forms part of the family name. By virtue of
use for about 25 years, the JINDAL Family of Marks have
become well-reputed trade marks in the market of PVC pipes and
non-metallic pipes and fittings, particularly in the plumbing
sector.
5.5. The consolidated audited sales of the Plaintiffs under the
JINDAL Family of Marks have grown from ₹76,57,000/- in the
financial year 2003-04 to ₹45,26,71,000/- in the financial year
2024-25, and the business promotional expenses have grown
from ₹2,76,000/- in the financial year 2003-04 to ₹1,33,78,000/-
in the financial year 2024-25, as reflected in the certificates of
the Chartered Accountant filed on record. The Plaintiffs have
received several awards and the Plaintiffs’ Goods have been
approved by several government bodies, including the Central
Public Works Department, the Delhi Development Authority
and the Airport Authority of India. The Plaintiffs maintain the
websites https://jindaltubes.com, registered on 12.02.2003,
https://www.jindalpvcpipes.com and https://www.jindal.co.in,
and are active on various social media platforms.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 5 of 23

5.6. Defendant No. 1 has filed Trade Mark Application No. 4671927
for the Mark ‘GROJINDAL with G and Device’ in Class
17 on 24.09.2020 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis, which is
under opposition, and Trade Mark Application No. 7576208 for
the same Mark on 05.03.2026 in Class 17 for identical goods,
with a claimed user date of 26.10.2020. In support of the claimed
user, Defendant No. 1 has relied upon a few invoices, all of
which are fabricated and forged. Even taking the claimed user to
be true, the same is subsequent to the Plaintiffs’ adoption and use
by more than 19 years.
5.7. The mala fides of Defendant No. 1 is evident from the fact that,
despite filing the Trade Mark Applications for ‘GROJINDAL
with G and Device’, Defendant No. 1 is not using the said Mark
in the course of trade. Instead, Defendant No. 1 is using the Mark
/ , which bears an even closer
resemblance to the JINDAL Family of Marks, inasmuch as the
word ‘JINDAL’ is displayed in a larger, more prominent and
distinctive manner, while the device is used in a significantly
smaller and less prominent manner, thereby emphasising
‘JINDAL’ as the dominant and essential feature of the branding
of Defendant No. 1.
5.8. The entire Mark of the Plaintiffs has been adopted and subsumed
by Defendant No. 1 in the Impugned Mark. The adoption of the
registered Mark ‘JINDAL’ with the mere addition of the prefix
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 6 of 23

‘GRO’ is inconsequential and not enough to avoid infringement
or confusion. The prefix ‘GRO’ is generic, non-distinctive,
suggestive, laudatory or merely descriptive, evocative of growth
or agricultural utility, particularly in relation to irrigation and
PVC pipe products. The competing Marks are visually,
structurally and phonetically similar, and the Impugned Mark is
being used for identical goods, targeting the same class of
consumers through the same trade channels. Hence, the triple
identity test is satisfied.
5.9. Defendant No. 1 has neither disclosed nor substantiated any
legitimate basis, association or justification for adopting the
identical and dominant element ‘JINDAL’ as part of the
Impugned Mark. No explanation has been provided by
Defendant No. 1, either in its reply to the legal notice, in the
opposition proceedings, or in the evidence filed in support of
Trade Mark Application No. 4671927. Defendant No. 1,
operating in the same trade and industry, was aware, or in any
event ought to have been aware, of the prior adoption and use of
the JINDAL Family of Marks by the Plaintiffs. The adoption of
the Impugned Mark is, therefore, tainted with dishonesty from
its very inception. The explanation that the prefix ‘GRO’ is
derived from ‘Goyal’ is untenable, as a mark genuinely derived
from ‘Goyal’ did not need to incorporate the registered Mark
‘JINDAL’ in its entirety.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 7 of 23

5.10. The Impugned Goods are availed by consumers of average
intelligence and imperfect recollection, who are likely to be
confused into believing that the Impugned Goods are connected
with the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have no control over the quality
of the Impugned Goods, and any deficiency in the quality thereof
would directly and adversely affect the goodwill and reputation
of the Plaintiffs. Such injury to the goodwill and reputation of
the Plaintiffs, and to the purchasing public, cannot be assessed,
quantified or compensated in money.
5.11. This Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
Suit by virtue of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as
the Plaintiffs have their registered office at Moti Nagar, New
Delhi, through which the Plaintiffs carry on their business within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiffs also have
a reasonable apprehension that the Impugned Goods are likely to
be marketed, distributed, offered for sale and made available
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court through
established trade channels. A plaintiff can institute a suit at the
place where it carries on business, irrespective of the place where
the cause of action has arisen. Reliance was placed on Indian
Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia , (2015) 10 SCC
161 and Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam
Kumar Chaubey , 2016 SCC OnLine Del 376 to submit that,
even if the cause of action is confined to Punjab, this Court has
the territorial jurisdiction, as the Plaintiffs have no subordinate
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 8 of 23

office in Punjab. The Plaintiffs do not own, lease or occupy any
premises in Punjab, do not employ any staff in Punjab and sell
their goods in Punjab only through independent distributors on a
buyer-seller basis. The Plaintiffs do not have any place of
business at S.C.F. 69, Ground Floor, Royal Estate, Zirakpur,
Punjab, and M/s Jindal Tubes operates in Punjab as an
independent distributor on a principal-to-principal basis under a
Distribution Agreement dated 02.07.2020, as also stated in the
affidavit of its partner.
5.12. Reliance was placed on Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B.
Vijaya Sai , (2022) 5 SCC 1 to submit that, where the defendant
uses a mark identical with or similar to the registered trade mark
in relation to similar goods, the Court need not enter into an
enquiry as to whether the parties cater to different classes of
customers, and an injunction would be issued as soon as it is
proved that the defendant is improperly using the trade mark of
the plaintiff. It was further submitted, relying on the same
judgment, that the addition of a prefix to a registered trade mark
does not take away the phonetic and visual similarity between
the competing marks, and that, in cases of infringement of a trade
mark, an injunction must normally follow and mere delay in
bringing the action is not sufficient to defeat the grant of
injunction.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 9 of 23

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS
6. Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 1 made the following submissions:
6.1. An interim injunction is a discretionary equitable relief that
presupposes a court seized of territorial jurisdiction over the lis ,
and the objection to territorial jurisdiction ought to be considered
first. On the Plaintiffs’ own pleadings, the entire cause of action
arose in Punjab, as the invoice relied upon by the Plaintiffs
relates to a transaction from Sunam to Jalandhar, the market
survey was conducted at Jalandhar and both the Defendants are
situated in Punjab. The Plaintiffs themselves carry on business
in Punjab, as Registration No. 1018169 is for sale in Punjab,
Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, and the Plaintiffs carry on
business at S.C.F. 69, Ground Floor, Royal Estate, Zirakpur,
District S.A.S. Nagar, Punjab. Where the plaintiff carries on
business in the State in which the entire cause of action has
arisen, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not
sustain a suit at the distant registered office. Reliance was placed
on Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. ( supra ) and Ultra
Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. ( supra ) in support of this
submission.
6.2. The documents filed by the Plaintiffs themselves disclose a
business presence of the Plaintiffs in Punjab, including a listing
on IndiaMART identifying premises of Plaintiff No. 1 at Village
Sarmastpur, Jalandhar along with its manager, and an
arrangement with M/s Jindal Tubes at Zirakpur bearing the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 10 of 23

attributes of an agency. The present case, therefore, falls within
the scenario in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. ( supra )
where both the subordinate office of the plaintiff and the cause
of action are situated at the same place, and the Plaintiffs ought
to have approached the competent court in Punjab.
6.3. The averment in the Plaint that the Impugned Goods are likely
to be marketed in Delhi is a bare apprehension, which is
speculative, unsupported and contradicted by the Plaintiffs’ own
averment that Defendant No. 1 has no online presence. Reliance
was placed on Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali
Krishna Reddy , 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780 to submit that
territorial jurisdiction cannot be based on a mere apprehension,
without any material showing that Defendant No. 1 has targeted
the market in Delhi.
6.4. Reliance was placed on Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad , (2024)
4 SCC 696 to submit that this Court must record a reasoned
prima facie determination on territorial jurisdiction before
granting any interim restraint, and on Allied Blenders &
Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prag Distillery Pvt. Ltd. , 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 7225 to submit that the averments in the Plaint are
not presumed to be correct while deciding an application under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Plaintiffs have
given up the claim for passing off, as the additional forum under
Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is not available for
a claim of passing off and no part of the cause of action arose in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 11 of 23

Delhi. The claim of the Plaintiffs must, therefore, stand or fall
strictly within the rights conferred by the Registered Marks.
6.5. The Plaintiffs, seeking the discretionary relief of an injunction,
were bound to make full and frank disclosure of all material
facts. The Plaint does not disclose that Registration No.
1018169, which is principally relied upon, bears an express
territorial limitation confining it to Punjab, Haryana and
Himachal Pradesh. The non-disclosure of the said limitation is a
material circumstance weighing against the grant of
discretionary relief.
6.6. The Plaintiffs obtained exemption from pre-institution mediation
on the footing that the Suit contemplated urgent interim relief,
yet at the time of institution sought leave to deposit the requisite
court fee within seven days. A party genuinely apprehending
imminent and irreparable injury does not approach the Court
without the requisite court fee and seek time to pay it.
6.7. The Plaintiffs have no prima facie case, as no infringement of
Registration No. 1018169 lies within Delhi, the said registration
being confined to sale in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal
Pradesh. ‘JINDAL’ is a common surname, and the honest use by
Defendant No. 1 of the composite Mark ‘GROJINDAL’, the
element ‘GRO’ being derived from the trade name of Defendant
No. 1, i.e. , Goyal, is protected under Section 35 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999. The Plaintiffs do not enjoy any exclusive right
in the common surname ‘JINDAL’ capable of restraining the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 12 of 23

bona fide use of ‘GROJINDAL’ by Defendant No. 1. ‘JINDAL’
is also the maternal family surname of the proprietor of
Defendant No. 1, and several independent corporate groups use
‘JINDAL’ marks for pipes and tubes.
6.8. The competing Marks, compared as wholes, are not deceptively
similar. The composite Mark ‘GROJINDAL’ of Defendant No.
1, with its distinct stylised ‘G’ device, conveys a commercial
impression different from the green oval ‘JINDAL’ device of the
Plaintiffs. The use by Defendant No. 1 is honest and bona fide .
Defendant No. 1 denies the use of the other representations
attributed to it by the Plaintiffs on the basis of the material
collected by the investigator, and has always used only the ‘G’
device containing the expression ‘GROJINDAL’.
6.9. The registrations relied upon by the Plaintiffs are the subject of
rectification proceedings filed on 05.11.2022, as admitted in the
Plaint. While the pendency of the rectification proceedings does
not by itself extinguish the Registered Marks, it is a relevant
circumstance bearing upon the strength and clarity of the
Plaintiffs’ prima facie case. Registration No. 1018169 is
restricted to PVC pipes, bends and joints for sale in Punjab,
Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, and Registration No. 1165594
is a device registration for HDPE pipes, MDPE pipes and PE
pipes, limited to the colour green, which was assigned to Plaintiff
No. 1 only on 16.08.2021, after Defendant No. 1 had filed its
Trade Mark Applications. Reliance was placed on Amir Biri
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 13 of 23

Factory v. Mohd. Aslam , 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 425 to submit
that a territorially restricted registration cannot be enforced
beyond the territory for which it was granted, and on Nandhini
Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation
Ltd. , (2018) 9 SCC 183 to submit that a registration for particular
goods does not confer a monopoly over all goods falling in the
same class.
6.10. The balance of convenience lies against the grant of injunction.
Defendant No. 1 is an established sole proprietor carrying on a going
business under the Mark ‘GROJINDAL’ since 2020. An injunction
would bring an established and ongoing business to a halt, whereas
the continuation of the status quo pending trial would occasion no
comparable prejudice to the Plaintiffs. In the alternative, Defendant
No. 1 offered to use ‘GROJINDAL’ only as a single word in
uniform font, size and colour, along with the ‘G’ device and the
legend “ Manufactured by: M/s Goyal Polymers, Sunam (Punjab) ”,
without displaying ‘JINDAL’ separately or within an oval, and to
maintain accounts of its sales pending trial.
6.11. The Plaintiffs will suffer no irreparable injury, as the Plaintiffs
have themselves quantified their claim for damages at
₹2,00,05,000/- and have sought rendition of accounts. Reliance
was placed on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. , 1990 Supp
SCC 727 to submit that, where a party itself pleads and quantifies
its loss in money, its assertion that the loss is incapable of
monetary assessment is materially weakened.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 14 of 23

6.12. The chronology disclosed in the Plaint raises a serious question
as to delay and the absence of true urgency, as the Trade Mark
Application of Defendant No. 1 has been a matter of public
record since 2020, while the Plaintiffs plead discovery of the
Impugned Mark only in late February 2026.
6.13. The relief sought, if granted, would substantially alter the
existing commercial position of the Parties and displace the
established Mark of Defendant No. 1 before any trial on the
merits. Such relief calls for exceptional caution, more so where
the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Suit is in issue.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
7. Defendant No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection with respect to the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant No. 1 has also filed I.A.
17879/2026 under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking return of the Plaint
on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, and I.A. 18248/2026 under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the Plaint. By the order
dated 15.10.2026, the Plaintiffs have been granted time to file a consolidated
Reply to these Applications, and the pleadings therein are yet to be completed.
Defendant No. 1 relying on Asma Lateef ( supra ), has contended that a prima
facie determination on territorial jurisdiction is required to be made before
any interim relief is granted.
8. Accordingly, for the purpose of the present Application, it is required
to be examined if prima facie territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
Suit has been made out.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 15 of 23

9. Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides an additional
forum to the plaintiff in a suit for infringement of a registered trade mark, by
enabling the suit to be instituted before a court within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business
or personally works for gain. The Plaintiffs have pleaded that the Plaintiffs
have their registered office at Moti Nagar, New Delhi, through which the
Plaintiffs carry on business, and have placed on record the records maintained
by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs with respect to Plaintiff No. 1 and
Plaintiff No. 2. The Plaintiffs have not pressed the claim for passing off and
have confined the present Suit to infringement of the Registered Marks. The
question of territorial jurisdiction is, therefore, required to be examined under
Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which is available for a suit for
infringement. The contention of Defendant No. 1 that the claim for passing
off was given up for retaining the jurisdiction of this Court, does not affect
the availability of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for the claim
of infringement.
10. Defendant No. 1 has relied on Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.
( supra ) and Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. ( supra ) to contend that where
the plaintiff carries on business through a subordinate office at the place where
the cause of action has arisen, the plaintiff cannot invoke Section 134(2) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 to sue at the place of its principal office. The said
submission would arise for consideration only if the Plaintiffs are shown to
carry on business through a subordinate office or place of business in Punjab.
Defendant No. 1 has asserted that the Plaintiffs carry on business at S.C.F. 69,
Ground Floor, Royal Estate, Zirakpur, Punjab. The affidavit filed by Defendant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 16 of 23

No. 1 in support of the Reply, however, records that this averment is based on
information received by Defendant No. 1, and no material has been placed on
record to show that the said premises is a place of business of the Plaintiffs.
11. The territorial limitation in Registration No. 1018169 relates to the scope
of the said registration and does not, by itself, establish that the Plaintiffs carry
on business through a subordinate office in Punjab. The Plaintiffs have denied
having any place of business at the said premises and have stated that M/s
Jindal Tubes is an independent distributor operating in Punjab on a principal-
to-principal basis under a Distribution Agreement dated 02.07.2020. The sale
of goods through an independent distributor does not, prima facie , amount to
the Plaintiffs carrying on business through a subordinate office in Punjab.
Similarly, the listing on IndiaMART relied upon by Defendant No. 1, being a
listing on an online marketplace, does not, by itself, prima facie establish that
the Plaintiffs carry on business through a subordinate office at Jalandhar.
12. As the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked on the basis of the place
where the Plaintiffs carry on business under Section 134(2) of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999, the submission of Defendant No. 1 with respect to the
apprehension pleaded in the Plaint that the Impugned Goods are likely to be
sold in Delhi, need not be examined at this stage. Accordingly, this Court is
prima facie of the view that it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
present Suit. This finding is confined to the adjudication of the present
Application and shall not prejudice the consideration of I.A. 17879/2026 and
I.A. 18248/2026, which shall be decided on their own merits.
13. Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the Mark ‘JINDAL’
(word) under Registration No. 1018169 in Class 17 for PVC pipes, bends and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 17 of 23

joints, with user claim from 01.04.2001, and the device Mark under
Registration No. 1165594 in Class 17 for HDPE pipes, MDPE pipes and PE
pipes, with user claim from 06.01.2003. Both the Registered Marks have been
renewed and are subsisting. In terms of Section 31(1) of the Trade Marks Act,
1999, the registration of a trade mark is prima facie evidence of its validity.
Defendant No. 1 has itself accepted that the pendency of the rectification
proceedings filed by a third party does not, by itself, extinguish the Registered
Marks. The pendency of the rectification proceedings does not, at this stage,
take away from the rights of Plaintiff No. 1 under the Registered Marks.
14. The contention of Defendant No. 1 that the Plaintiffs did not disclose
the territorial limitation in Registration No. 1018169 is not borne out from the
record, as the table at paragraph 11 of the Plaint sets out the specification of
goods under the said registration as including the words “ For Sale in Punjab,
Haryana and Himachal Pradesh ”. The contention that no infringement of the
said registration lies within Delhi also does not advance the case of Defendant
No. 1. On the own showing of Defendant No. 1, the Impugned Goods are
manufactured at Sunam and sold at Jalandhar, both of which are situated in
Punjab and fall within the territory covered by the said registration. Further,
Registration No. 1165594 does not contain any territorial limitation.
15. The Impugned Mark ‘GROJINDAL’ / ‘GRO JINDAL’ incorporates
the Mark ‘JINDAL’ of the Plaintiffs in its entirety, with the addition of the
prefix ‘GRO’. The photographs of the Impugned Goods placed on record by
the Plaintiffs depict the Impugned Mark as , with the word
‘JINDAL’ in large letters within an oval and the word ‘GRO’ in smaller letters
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 18 of 23

above it, and as . The photographs placed on record by
Defendant No. 1, depicting the Mark claimed to be actually adopted and used
by it, show the device , which also contains the expression
‘GROJINDAL’. Defendant No. 1 has, in its Reply, also stated that it is
carrying on business under the Mark ‘GROJINDAL’ since 2020. Even on the
denial by Defendant No. 1 of the use of the other representations attributed to
it, the Mark used by it contains the expression ‘GROJINDAL’, which
incorporates the Mark ‘JINDAL’ in its entirety.
16. When the competing Marks are compared as a whole, the word
‘JINDAL’ is the dominant and essential feature of the Impugned Mark, both
visually and phonetically. The addition of the prefix ‘GRO’ does not alter the
overall commercial impression created by the Impugned Mark, which remains
that of the Mark ‘JINDAL’. Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
provides that, where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist
of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of
those words as well as by their visual representation. In Renaissance Hotel
Holdings Inc. ( supra ), the mark ‘SAI RENAISSANCE’, which added a
prefix to the registered trade mark ‘RENAISSANCE’, was held to be
phonetically as well as visually similar to the registered trade mark, and its
use was held to be an act of infringement in view of Section 29(9) of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999. Similarly, the use of ‘GROJINDAL’ / ‘GRO JINDAL’,
including within the stylised ‘G’ device relied upon by Defendant No. 1, is
phonetically as well as visually similar to the Mark ‘JINDAL’ of the
Plaintiffs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 19 of 23

17. The Impugned Goods, being PVC pipes and fittings, are identical to the
goods for which the Registered Marks are registered and used and are sold to
the same class of consumers through the same trade channels, namely,
distributors of pipes and fittings. Having regard to the similarity between the
competing Marks and the identity of the goods, there is a likelihood of
confusion on the part of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect
recollection, who is likely to assume that the Impugned Goods originate from
or are associated with the Plaintiffs.
18. In Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. ( supra ), it was held that, where
the defendant was using a mark identical with or similar to the registered trade
mark in relation to similar goods, it was not open to the Court to enter into a
discussion as to whether the parties catered to different classes of customers,
and that, in an action for infringement, an injunction would be issued as soon
as it is proved that the defendant is improperly using the trade mark of the
plaintiff. The Plaintiffs have, therefore, prima facie established infringement
of the Registered Marks under Sections 29(2)(b) and 29(9) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999.
19. Defendant No. 1 has sought to justify the adoption of the Impugned
Mark on the basis of Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 35
protects only the bona fide use by a person of their own name, the name of
their place of business, or the name of any of their predecessors in business,
or of a bona fide description of the character or quality of their goods or
services.
20. The proprietor of Defendant No. 1 is Mr. Baldev Krishan, son of Mr.
Satpal Goyal, who carries on business under the name of M/s Goyal Polymers .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 20 of 23

Defendant No. 1 has sought to explain only the element ‘GRO’ as being
derived from ‘Goyal’, which prima facie does not inspire confidence. In any
case, no explanation has been offered for the adoption of the word ‘JINDAL’,
which is neither the name of the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 nor the name
of its place of business nor the name of any of its predecessors in business.
The contention that ‘JINDAL’ is the maternal family surname of the
proprietor of Defendant No. 1 was not taken in the Reply to the present
Application and is not supported by any material on record. In any event,
‘JINDAL’ is not the name of the proprietor of Defendant No. 1. The alleged
use of ‘JINDAL’ by other entities also does not, prima facie , justify the
adoption of the word ‘JINDAL’ by Defendant No. 1 for identical goods.
21. The Plaintiffs have prima facie established the use of the Mark
‘JINDAL’ since the year 2001. Trade Mark Application No. 4671927 of
Defendant No. 1 was filed on 24.09.2020 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis,
and Trade Mark Application No. 7576208 claims user only from 26.10.2020,
which is nearly two decades after the adoption of the Mark ‘JINDAL’ by the
Plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1, being engaged in the same trade, has not offered
any explanation for adopting the word ‘JINDAL’, which is the dominant
feature of the Impugned Mark. In these circumstances, the adoption of the
Impugned Mark by Defendant No. 1 cannot, prima facie , be said to be honest
or bona fide .
22. The contention of Defendant No. 1 regarding delay is also untenable. Trade
Mark Application No. 4671927 was filed on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis, and
the filing of such an application does not, by itself, establish that the Plaintiffs had
knowledge of the use of the Impugned Mark in the market. The Plaintiffs have
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 21 of 23

pleaded that they became aware of the Impugned Goods in the last week of
February 2026, and the Plaintiffs issued the legal notice dated 12.03.2026 and
instituted the present Suit thereafter.
23. The contention of Defendant No. 1 that the urgency claimed by the
Plaintiffs is not genuine, as the Plaintiffs sought time to deposit the court fee, is
also misplaced. By the order dated 29.05.2026, the Plaintiffs were permitted to
deposit the requisite court fee by 30.05.2026, and the court fee was deposited
accordingly. Seeking a short time to deposit the court fee does not take away from
the urgency of the relief sought against the continued use of the Impugned Mark.
24. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, who have been
using the Mark ‘JINDAL’ since the year 2001, with sales of ₹45,26,71,000/- in
the financial year 2024-25. Defendant No. 1 has not placed any material on record
to show the extent of its business under the Impugned Mark. Defendant No. 1
would remain free to carry on its business under any other mark which is not
identical with or deceptively similar to the Registered Marks. The continued use
of the Impugned Mark, in respect of which the Plaintiffs have no control over the
quality of the Impugned Goods, would cause injury to the goodwill and reputation
of the Plaintiffs which cannot be adequately compensated in damages. The
quantification of damages in the Plaint is for the purposes of court fee and
jurisdiction and does not render such injury compensable in money. The
alternative proposal of Defendant No. 1 to use ‘GROJINDAL’ as a single
word along with the ‘G’ device and to maintain accounts of its sales cannot
be accepted, as the use of ‘GROJINDAL’ itself has been found to prima facie
infringe the Registered Marks.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 22 of 23

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Plaintiffs have made out a prima
facie case for the grant of an interim injunction, the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury if the
interim injunction is not granted.
26. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed. During the pendency
of the present Suit, the Defendants, their proprietors, partners or directors, as
the case may be, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their
behalf are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting,
advertising, marketing or in any manner using, directly or indirectly, the
Impugned Mark ‘GROJINDAL’ / ‘GRO JINDAL’ / /
/ , or any other mark which is identical with or
deceptively similar to the Registered Marks, amounting to infringement of the
Registered Marks, in relation to MLC pipes and fittings, PVC pipes and
fittings, UPVC pipes and fittings, CPVC pipes and fittings, CPVC rigid pipes
and fittings, HDPE pipes and fittings, MDPE pipes and fittings, PE pipes and
fittings, PPR-C pipes and fittings, or any allied and cognate goods.
27. The observations made in the Judgment are confined to the adjudication
of the present Application and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the Suit or of the other pending Applications.
TEJAS KARIA, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
Sz
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 622/2026 Page 23 of 23