Delhi HC Temporarily Bars Use of ‘GROJINDAL’ on Pipes, Finding Prima Facie Infringement of JINDAL Trademarks

Plaintiff No. 1 was the registered proprietor of the word mark “JINDAL” for specified PVC pipes, bends and joints, and a “JINDAL” device mark for specified polyethylene pipes.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used “GROJINDAL” / “GRO JINDAL” for pipes and fittings, incorporating “JINDAL” in its entirety.

After discovering the defendants’ goods in Jalandhar in February 2026, the plaintiffs issued a cease-and-desist notice and then sued for trade mark infringement, seeking an interim injunction; they did not press their passing-off claim.

Defendant No. 1 disputed jurisdiction, similarity and dishonest adoption, and relied on claimed use since 2020.

It also offered, in the alternative, to use “GROJINDAL” in a uniform format and maintain sales accounts.

The Court considered the plaintiffs’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC while separate applications to return or reject the plaint remained pending.

Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides an additional forum for an infringement suit where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business; under Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, the additional forum may be unavailable where the plaintiff has a subordinate office at the place where the cause of action arose.

Section 31(1) makes registration prima facie evidence of validity.

Under Sections 29(2)(b) and 29(9), use of a mark similar to a registered mark for similar goods may constitute infringement, including through spoken use of words; Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai supports the proposition that adding a prefix does not necessarily avoid visual or phonetic similarity.

Section 35 protects bona fide use of a person’s own name, place of business, predecessor’s name, or a bona fide description of goods.

Interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

The Court found prima facie jurisdiction because the plaintiffs pleaded and produced records showing that they carried on business through their registered office in Delhi, while the defendants had not substantiated that the plaintiffs maintained a subordinate office in Punjab.

A territorial restriction in one registration and sales through an independent distributor did not establish such an office.

The registrations remained subsisting despite pending rectification proceedings, and the goods at issue fell within the territory covered by the geographically limited registration; the other registration had no territorial limitation.

The defendants’ mark incorporated “JINDAL” in full, which the Court considered its dominant and essential feature; the prefix “GRO” and the stylised “G” device did not sufficiently change the mark’s overall visual and phonetic impression.

The goods, consumers and trade channels were identical or overlapping, creating a likelihood of confusion.

Section 35 did not prima facie assist the defendants: “JINDAL” was not shown to be the proprietor’s or business’s name, and no supporting material substantiated the asserted maternal surname.

The defendants’ adoption also post-dated the plaintiffs’ use by nearly two decades, with no adequate explanation for adopting “JINDAL”.

The plaintiffs’ prompt action after discovery, the defendants’ failure to establish the scale of their business, and the risk to the plaintiffs’ goodwill supported the balance of convenience and irreparable-injury findings.

It allowed the application and restrained the defendants, pending suit, from using “GROJINDAL” / “GRO JINDAL” or any identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to the specified pipes, fittings and allied or cognate goods.

The findings were expressly confined to the interim application and did not determine the merits of the suit or the pending applications.