Trademark disputes at the interim stage often turn on competing claims of prior use, registration and goodwill. The courts are not expected to finally decide these questions before the parties have submitted their evidence. The first task is to assess whether the plaintiff has demonstrated an adequately strong prima facie right that deserves protection until the suit is decided.
Trademark disputes at the interim stage often turn on competing claims of prior use, registration, goodwill and market recognition. Each party may rely on different evidence such as invoices, registration certificates, advertisements, sales figures and other material to show a better right in the disputed mark. However, at this stage, the court is not expected to decide ownership or which set of documents will eventually prevail. Such questions generally require a full trial, where the parties can lead evidence and test the opposing case.
At the interim stage, the court must assess whether the plaintiff has shown a sufficiently strong prima facie right that requires protection until the suit is finally decided. This assessment is supplemented by the other requirements for interim relief, including whether the balance of convenience favours the plaintiff and whether refusal of an injunction is likely to cause irreparable injury. The burden remains on the party seeking the injunction, and an interim order cannot rest merely on commercial success, higher turnover or advertising presence.
The Gujarat High Court reviewed this concept in a suit on July 28, 2026, where the Division Bench set aside an interim injunction that had stopped the appellants from using their own brand name and similar names for their jewellery products. The case raised the important question as to whether an unregistered applicant with a larger business and higher turnover can restrain a registered proprietor who claims earlier use of the same mark. In assessing this question, the Court advised against turning an interlocutory proceeding into a mini-trial and against treating commercial success as a substitute for proof of legal priority.
Background of the Case
In Tinubhai Babubhai Bhalgama & Ors. vs Alpeshbhai Ranchhodbhai Lunagariya & Ors. [R/Appeal from Order No. 82 of 2026], respondent no. 1, who was the original plaintiff, has been engaged in a jewellery business in Rajkot under the name “Aditya Jewellers”. They claimed to have adopted and used the marks “Aditya”, “Aditya Jwelers” and “Aditya Jewellers” since March 2007. According to the respondent, their long and continuous use of the mark, along with advertising and promotional activity, had created substantial goodwill and reputation. They also claimed that the mark had acquired secondary meaning and had become well known in the jewellery trade. Their application for registration of the mark was filed in March 2024 and was pending before the Trade Marks Registry.
The suit was filed against the appellants, who were the original defendants, for trademark infringement, passing off and damages. The respondent filed the suit to restrain them from using marks such as “Aditya Jewellers”, “Aditya Jewels”, “Adityam Jewels” and “Aditya Fashion” in relation to jewellery and allied goods in Class 14. The respondent’s case was that the appellants had adopted these marks dishonestly to take advantage of the goodwill associated with its business and to create confusion among customers.
Appellants’ Contentions
The appellants claimed they have been using the name “Aditya Jewellers” continuously and in good faith since May 2002, which is several years before the respondent said they started using it in 2007. They also mentioned that they registered the mark and argued that, as registered owners, they deserve protection under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
To support their contentions, the appellants submitted registration certificates, invoices, balance sheets, income-tax returns, user affidavits and other documents. They further contended that the respondent had not established continuous use from 2007. According to them, many of the respondent’s invoices were from 2014 onwards, the balance sheets relied upon were from 2017-18, and the majority of the promotional material was also of a later period. They also referred to an objection raised by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11(1) against the respondent’s application. The appellants’ central argument was that an unregistered claimant could not obtain an interim injunction against a registered proprietor claiming earlier use merely by showing that its present business was larger.
Commercial Court’s Decision
The Commercial Court acknowledged that the appellants claimed use from 2002 and had obtained registration in 2021, while the respondent claimed use from 2007 and did not hold registration for the word mark. Nevertheless, the Court questioned the reliability of the appellants’ evidence, noting that only a few invoices had been produced for the period between 2002 and 2006. Further, some of the invoices did not mention the complete addresses, signatures, VAT details or GST particulars. Therefore, the Court was doubtful of their authenticity and observed that they appeared to have been created subsequently.
The Commercial Court then compared the scale of the parties’ businesses. On this basis, the Court held that the respondent had established goodwill and reputation. It found that continued use of the same or similar marks by the appellants could lead to confusion and dilute the respondent’s brand identity. Accordingly, an injunction was granted restraining the appellants from using “Aditya Jewellers” and any identical or deceptively similar mark, label, packaging or trade dress during the pendency of the suit.
Gujarat High Court’s Findings
The Gujarat High Court found that the Commercial Court’s decision was not reasonable. It emphasised that to grant a temporary injunction, there are three main requirements of a clear case, balance of convenience and proof of injury that cannot be fixed. The plaintiff asking for protection must meet these requirements. At the interim stage, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of disputed evidence or decide which party’s documents are ultimately reliable. Such questions must be assessed through pleadings, cross-examination and evidence at trial. The Commercial Court treated the appellants’ invoices as unreliable and potentially fabricated without the benefit of a full trial. In the High Court’s view, this amounted to a premature assessment of evidence.
Further, the fact that the appellants’ documents could later be questioned did not justify completely discarding them at the injunction stage. The court was required to consider whether the respondent had independently established a prima facie right strong enough to restrain the appellants.
On Registration and the Claim of Prior Use
The High Court noted that the appellants had produced material supporting their claim that they had started their business in 2002. They were also the registered proprietors of the mark “Aditya Jewellers”. On the contrary, the respondent did not hold registration for the word mark and claimed adoption only from 2007. Their case was based on the goodwill they claimed to have acquired through extensive use, advertising and commercial growth. However, this factor did not allow the respondent’s case to be treated as prima facie superior merely because their present business was larger.
The questions about whether the respondent used the mark continuously since 2007, whether the mark had enough goodwill to support a passing-off claim, and whether it had become well known, all needed evidence. These issues could not be definitively settled during the interim application.
On Turnover as Proof of Trademark Rights
One key point in the judgment is the difference between commercial success and legal rights. The Commercial Court noted that the respondent had significantly higher sales and a stronger advertising presence, and saw these factors as evidence that the respondent used the mark first and had stronger rights to it. The High Court disagreed and noted that a higher turnover may show that one business has expanded more rapidly or has a larger market presence. However, it does not establish earlier adoption, dishonest conduct by the opposing party or a better legal title to the mark. A later user does not automatically obtain superior trademark rights solely based on the sales, publicity or customer base exceeding those of an earlier or registered user. The respondent’s turnover could not substitute for the need to establish a prima facie right against appellants who claimed earlier use and held registration.
On Failure to Establish a Prima Facie Case
The High Court concluded that the respondent had not established the first important requirement for interim relief of establishing a prima facie case. Therefore, the remaining factors of balance of convenience and irreparable harm could not independently sustain the injunction. Thus, the Gujarat High Court found that the Commercial Court had erred in granting relief on the basis of disputed findings regarding goodwill, customer confusion and documents.
Decision of the Court
The Gujarat High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court. The High Court found that the Commercial Court had erred in examining disputed documents at the interim stage. The Commercial Court had also placed disparate weight on the respondent’s larger turnover, advertising expenditure and customer base, without first establishing whether the respondent had a better prima facie right to the mark. The High Court clarified that the Commercial Court would decide the suit independently on the evidence led by the parties and without being influenced by the observations made in the appellate judgment.
Importance of the Judgment
The Gujarat High Court ruled that the injunction against the appellants was based on a quick and incomplete evaluation of the evidence. This decision clarifies that an interim injunction is not a replacement for a full trial. The judgment also supports the view that factors like sales, advertising spending and market presence are not conclusive for trademark claims. While these factors can help show goodwill, they do not automatically demonstrate priority or dishonest use.
