CASE NAME: Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog vs M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
CASE NUMBER: CS(COMM) 412/2025
COURT: The High Court of Delhi
DATE: 9 January 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia at the High Court of Delhi
FACTS
The Plaintiff is a sole proprietor firm founded in the year 1997 and is the registered owner of the “TIGER GOLD BRAND” mark with its device symbol. The Plaintiff’s mark came into continuous use in May 2010 for agricultural tool items such as disc harrows and was registered as such on February 2, 2023. It affirms to have earned immense goodwill and trust by bringing an annual revenue of ₹40 crores for the past three years with the Plaintiff’s services.
The dispute arose in October 2024, upon learning that the defendants were selling identical agricultural products with the “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” mark. Such items were offered through interactive websites conducted by Defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The plaintiff immediately filed this complaint based on the bad faith adoption of the mark in issue to exploit the plaintiff’s established reputation.
ISSUES
- Whether the Defendants’ utilization of the “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” mark constitutes an infringement on the plaintiff’s trademark registration and copyright by being deceptively similar.
- Whether the components “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic, in the public domain, and commonly used in the trade.
- Whether the registration of a device mark under the Trademark Act, Section 17, extends exclusively to the entire mark or to the constituent parts of the mark.
- Whether the Plaintiff has shown adequate goodwill and reputation in order to allege a claim for passing off/misrepresentation.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Section 17, Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act,
- Section 30(1)(a), Trade Marks Act,
- Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 – Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
ARGUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF
The Plaintiff argues that defendants mark resembles theirs in both sound and appearance but differs only in the substitution of “GOLD” with “PREMIUM.” The “TIGER” theme presented and the use of “TIGER” as a word imply quality in connection with the Plaintiff alone. It should be noted that part of their argument constitutes “first to market,” as the Plaintiff began to use their mark as early as 2010, giving them an upper hand as compared to the Defendants’ use of their mark in 2024.
The Plaintiff contends that the general similarity between their trademarks would mislead an ordinary and reasonably prudent consumer once both began to be used for similar items of agricultural produce.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS
The Defendants argue in opposition that the words “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic and in the public domain and accordingly do not exist as exclusive trademarks. They have cited instances where trademarks containing “TIGER,” for agricultural products, have been registered in various states in India. The Defendants argue that the trademarks cannot be analyzed in portions; in other words, they are whole trademarks. Defendant No.5 argues that it follows rules and regulations and acts as an intermediary and not as a party to transactions.
ANALYSIS
Further, the court held that the words ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic words in common public usage throughout India as a whole; hence, the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over the marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ individually.
By applying the ‘anti-dissection’ rule, the court examined the mark as an entirety and found the marks to be distinct on the basis of visual differences. Further, the court was of the view that the inclusion of the word ‘PREMIUM’ was sufficient to set the Defendants’ mark apart from the original mark for the farmer clientele.
JUDGEMENT
In the case of the Plaintiff’s plea to the Delhi High Court for an interim injunction, the matter was dismissed by Justice Tejas Karia. The Plaintiff’s case lacked the element of infringement or passing off, as the signs were not deemed to be “deceptively similar” when considered “in their full context.” The ruling established the point that “the registration of the device trademark does not bestow special rights on the individual words contained therein.” Where the words used were generic or generally used in commerce, the Court deemed there to be “no likelihood of confusion and damage to reputation.”
CONCLUSION
What this judgment really consolidates is the important principle that one cannot patent generic terms or public domain words through a trademark registration. By relying only on an “as a whole” comparison test, the court ensures that common industry terms remain free to be used fairly by others.
Ultimately, the plaintiff failed to prove fraudulent similarity or misrepresentation, and interim relief was refused. The judgment also holds that a prior user cannot prevent others from using its generic elements, even if those elements form part of a different, combined mark.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
Click here to view the true copy of the Judgment: MAYANK JAIN versus M/S ATULYA DISCS PVT. LTD.
