A prior user and registered proprietor’s mark defeats interim injunction absent a prima facie case.

The appellants-defendants challenged an interlocutory order dated 9 March 2026 passed by the Commercial Court/6th Additional District Judge, Rajkot, in Commercial Trademark Suit No. 2 of 2025, whereby the plaintiff’s application under Exhibit 5 was allowed and the defendants were restrained from using the marks “Aditya Jewellers,” “Aditya Jewels,” “Adityam Jewels,” “Aditya Fashion,” or deceptively similar marks in relation to jewellery and allied goods.

The plaintiff claimed to have adopted and used “Aditya,” “Aditya Jewellers” and related marks since 28 March 2007, and asserted substantial goodwill, reputation, sales, advertising and market recognition in the jewellery business. Its application for registration of “Aditya Jewellers” was pending, while it claimed registration of a device mark containing the letter “A”.

The defendants contended that they had continuously and bona fide used “Aditya Jewellers” since 9 May 2002 and were registered proprietors of the mark from 2021. They relied on registration certificates, invoices, balance sheets, income-tax returns, user affidavits and other documents, and argued that the plaintiff’s unregistered-mark claim was barred by Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, while their registered rights were protected under Section 28.

The trial court accepted that the defendants held registration but discounted their earlier invoices as unreliable and inferred that the plaintiff had established prior use, goodwill and a likelihood of consumer confusion, principally on the basis of its substantially higher turnover, advertising and customer base. The defendants therefore preferred the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC.

The Court applied Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, governing appeals against orders granting or refusing temporary injunctions.

Interim injunction requires the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury; these requirements cannot be shifted to or proved by the defendant.

At the interlocutory stage, the court must not conduct a mini-trial or finally assess the weight, reliability or sufficiency of competing evidence.

Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 restricts infringement proceedings concerning an unregistered mark, while Section 28 confers statutory protection upon the registered proprietor, subject to the Act.

The Court also considered the plaintiff’s claims concerning goodwill and a “well-known” mark under Section 2(zg), and the eventual infringement question under Section 29, holding that such matters required trial on evidence.

It relied on Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Ltd., 2004 (6) SCC 145, for the principle that long user is not indispensable to establish reputation in a passing-off action, which may depend upon sales volume and extent of advertising.

The High Court held that the trial court improperly conducted an evidentiary assessment by characterising the defendants’ invoices as unreliable or subsequently created, despite the settled limitation against conducting a mini-trial at the injunction stage.

The defendants had placed material showing commencement of business in 2002, prior to the plaintiff’s claimed use from 2007, and had obtained registration of “Aditya Jewellers” in 2021.

Since the plaintiff itself was not the registered proprietor of the disputed mark, whereas the defendants claimed statutory protection as registered proprietors under Section 28, and had also asserted prior use, the plaintiff could not, at the interim stage, demonstrate a prima facie case of infringement or passing off.

The plaintiff’s higher turnover, advertising expenditure and customer base could not, by themselves, establish dishonest adoption, exclusive goodwill or a well-known mark, particularly when those matters were disputed and required evidence at trial.

Consequently, the remaining requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury also did not favour the plaintiff.

It held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case warranting temporary injunction and that the trial court had committed a grave error in granting relief on the basis of turnover and an impermissible assessment of the defendants’ evidence.

The order dated 9 March 2026 allowing Exhibit 5 in Commercial Trademark Suit No. 2 of 2025 was set aside; the appeal was allowed without costs, and the connected civil application for stay was disposed of as infructuous.

The trial court was directed to decide the suit independently on the evidence led by the parties and without being influenced by the High Court’s interlocutory observations.