$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 28th February, 2024
Date of decision: 02nd April, 2024
+ CS(COMM) 495/2019 & I.A. Nos. 12513/2019, 14284/2019,
2650/2021, 14468/2022

HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Arpita Mishra,
Mr. Kashish Sethi, Ms. Sunidhi Gupta,
Ms. Ayushi Chandra, Ms. Ritu
Khandelwal, Advocates with Mr. SK
Mishra (AR)
versus

BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS. ..... Defendants

Through: None.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been held through hybrid mode.
Background
2. The Plaintiff - Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. has filed the present suit inter
alia seeking protection of its mark ‘HALDIRAM’, and a declaration that the
said mark, along with its variations such as ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’
is ‘well-known’ in terms of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
(hereinafter, ‘the Act’). Further, by way of the present suit, the Plaintiff seeks
a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants, from selling
products under the impugned mark ‘HALDIRAM’/ ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIWALA’ or any other marks that are deceptively similar to the

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 1 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Plaintiff’s mark ‘HALDIRAM’.
3. The present suit for permanent injunction, damages, rendition of
accounts, passing off etc. has been filed against the following Defendants:

Defendant No. Name of the Defendant

1. Berachah Sales Corporation
2. Berachah Foods India Pvt. Ltd.
3. Haldiram Restro Private Limited
4. Haldiram Builders Private Limited
5. Mr. Sumit
6. Mr. Saurab

4. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are the proprietor/partners and promoters of

Defendant Nos. 1 to 4.
5. The Plaintiff’s case is that it coined the mark ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIAWALA/HALDIRAM'S’ way back in 1941, derived from the
nickname of the grandfather of the present promoters, who was known as
‘Haldiram’. The said mark has been used both as a trade name and as a trade
mark for Bhujia, Papad Fried, Namkeen, Saltish Daal, Sweets, and various
other edible food products since 1941. As per the plaint, starting from a small
shop in Bikaner, Rajasthan, the Plaintiff has grown into one of India's largest
food brands, catering to millions of people both in India and globally. The
Plaintiff has a number of group companies, all featuring ‘HALDIRAM’S’
name as a prominent part of their mark. The Plaintiff claims to be exporting
its products to more than a hundred countries. The plaint avers that the
Plaintiff is maintaining high standards of hygiene and quality, with regular
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 2 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 checks on raw materials and seasonings. According to the Plaintiff, its
dedication to quality has earned the brand ‘HALDIRAM’S’ numerous awards
and accolades over the years.
6. The ‘HALDIRAM’S’ mark is mainly used in two different forms:
i) One with the V shaped logo, displayed as follows (hereinafter,
‘V-shaped mark’):

ii) The second one with the oval shaped logo (hereinafter, ‘Oval
shaped mark):

7. The mark ‘HALDIRAM’S’ is also a registered trade mark and has been
registered in a variety of classes, especially in respect of food products.
8. In relation to the V-shaped mark, it is claimed that the Plaintiff holds
the registered trade mark ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, which includes the
letters ‘HRB’ arranged in a V-shaped logo, bearing registration number
285062 dated 29th December, 1972 in class 30, claiming user since 30 th
November, 1965. The said mark was published in the Trade Mark Journal No.
631-0 dated 16th September, 1975. The said V-shaped mark is valid across all
of India, except for West Bengal. As per the plaint, exclusion of West Bengal

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 3 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 was a deliberate choice, resulting from a Dissolution Deed dated 16 th
November, 1974, from the Plaintiff’s previous owners. According to this
deed, the Plaintiff's predecessors were given exclusive rights to use the said
mark in all of India, except West Bengal. The relevant portion of the Legal
Proceeding Certificate bearing no. TM-46 dated 11th December, 2019 is as
follows:
“GANGA BISHAN ALIAS HALDI RAM, MOOL
CHAND, SHIV KRISHAN AND KAMLA DEVI
TRADING AS HALDI RAM BHUJIA WALE, AND
ALSO AS CHAND MAL GANGA BISHWAN, BHUJIYA
BAZAR, BIKANER; MANUFACTURERS AND
MERCHANTS. BHUJIA, PAPAR FRIED, NAMKIN,
SALTISH DAL BEING EDIBLE PREPARATION
INCLUDED IN CLASS 30 EXCEPT FOR SALE IN THE
STATE OF WEST BENGAL. REGISTRATION
RENEWED FOR A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS FROM 29TH
DECEMBER, 1979.

SUBSEQUENT PROPRIETOR(S) PURSUANT TO A

REQUEST ON FORM T.M. 24 DATED 22ND
NOVEMBER 1985 AND ORDER THEREON DATED
15TH OCTOBER 1987 SHIV KISHAN AGGARWAL
SHIV RATTAN AGGARWAL MANOHARLAL
AGGARWAL MADHUSUDAN AGGARWAL TRADING
AS HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA BHUJIA BAZAR
BIKANER IS ARE REGISTERED AS SUBSEQUENT
PROPRIETOR (S) OF THE MARK AS FROM 30 JULY
1985 BY VIRTUE OF DISSOPUTION DEED DATED
16TH NOVEMBER 1974 JOINT VENTURE
AGREEMENT DATED 30TH MAY 1987 AND DEATH
OF LATE SHRI M.C. AGGARWAL IT IS A
CONDITION THAT THE MARK SHALL BE USED
ONLY IN RELATION TO THE GOODS CONNECTED
IN THE COURSE OF TRADE…”

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 4 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 9. As per the plaint, the said V-shaped mark remains active and registered
in the name of the Plaintiff as the present owner.
10. In relation to the Oval-shaped mark, the Plaintiff claims to not only
have multiple registrations for ‘HALDIRAM’S’ and its label in different
classes within India, as detailed in part of their documents, but also boasts
over 100 trade mark registrations internationally. The Plaintiff is the
registered proprietor of the said Oval-shaped mark under registration no.
1168994 dated 23rd January, 2003 in class 30. The said device mark was
published in Journal No. 1328-1, dated 7th February, 2005. The Plaintiff has
provided a list of all registration numbers in the respect of the Oval-shaped
mark as part of the ‘Affidavit by way of Ex-parte evidence on behalf of the
Plaintiff’ dated 29th May, 2023 at paragraph 11 of the said Affidavit, and
paragraph 10 of the plaint. Some the registrations are provided below:
Trade Mark Registration Date of User since Class
No. Application
HALDIRAM'S 1168994 23rd January, 30th 30
(LABEL) (device) 2003 November,
2002
HALDIRAMS 1217357 24th July, 2003 1st October, 29
CHIPS (LABEL) 2002
HALDIRAM'S 2609590 9th October, 1st 29
MOM SPECIAL 2013 November,
(DEVICE) 2012
11. Over time, as per the Plaintiff, it has developed various distinctive and
visually appealing artistic labels underlying the said ‘HALDIRAM’ marks.
The core elements of these labels include the ‘HALDIRAM'S’ registered
mark and the ‘HR’ logo within a red oval (as part of the Oval-shaped mark),

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 5 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 prominently featured on the labels, packaging, and trade dress. As per the
plaint, the said artistic labels/logos feature unique color schemes, get-up,
layouts, and combinations make the Plaintiff's product packaging particularly
attractive. The Plaintiff claims that the color schemes themselves serve as
distinct trade dresses. Moreover, all artistic works underlying the packaging
materials are original artistic works under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act,
1957, granting the Plaintiff exclusive reproduction rights in respect of the said
artistic works. The Plaintiff additionally claims that many of these artistic
works, packaging, and trade dresses have been registered with the Registrar
of Copyright. As per the documents filed by the Plaintiff, the artistic work
titled ‘HALDIRAM’S BHUJIA (POUCH)’ has been registered in the name
of the Applicant-M/s. Haldi Ram India Pvt. Ltd. bearing registration no. A-
55103/98 dated 7th September, 1998.
12. The Plaintiff and its associate companies own several domain names
related to the ‘HALDIRAM’ brand, including but not limited to
www.haldiram.com, www.haldiram.co.in, and various others that encompass
a range of Haldiram-related products and geographic extensions. The domain
name www.haldiram.com was acquired by Haldiram Manufacturing Co. Pvt.
Ltd., a group company of the Plaintiff, on 23 rd May, 1996, shortly after the
.com domains became available for registration. The Plaintiff actively
maintains websites, particularly on www.haldiram.com and
www.haldiramsonline.com, to showcase and sell its products online.
13. The Plaintiff’s case is that the Defendants initially incorporated a
company by the name ‘Haldiram Restro Pvt. Ltd.’ on 27th February, 2019 as
evident from the Company Master Data placed on record by the Plaintiff.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Section 16(1)(b) of the
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 6 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Companies Act, 2013, before the Office of the Regional Director (Northern
Region), Registrar of Companies, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Regional
Director’) on 22nd March, 2019. On 9th July, 2019, a Hearing Notice was
issued by the Regional Director on the petition filed by the Plaintiff.
14. In the written statement to the petition filed before the Regional
Director dated 2nd August, 2019, by Defendant No.6-Mr. Saurab, on behalf of
Defendant No.3, it was claimed that the various trade mark applications were
his registrations. According to the Defendant No. 3, ‘HALDIRAM RESTRO
PRIVATE LIMITED’, operates exclusively in the restaurant, resort, hotel,
and banquet hall sector, which is covered by class 43.
15. The Defendants had applied for trade mark registrations in this class,
and the application is pending. On the other hand, the Plaintiff-Company had
not obtained, nor even applied for, registration in the same class, hence, they
did not own any marks under class 43. As per the Defendants, this position is
supported by evidence attached as Annexure R-1 to the written statement, and
thus the petition ought to be dismissed. Additionally, according to the
Defendants, there are 36 companies registered under the Companies Act,
2013 with the name ‘Haldiram’, many of which operate in the same business
sector. Since, the Plaintiff did not object to these companies, nor have they
objected to the Defendants’ use of the said mark, hence the Defendants’ use
of the said name cannot be restrained. The relevant portion of the said written
statement is as under:
“4. That at the very outset it is pertinent to mention here
that the Respondent Company HALDIRAM RESTRO
PRIVATE LIMITED has field of operation/business-
solely in the area of Restaurants/ Resorts/ Hotels/
Motels, banquet halls, farm house for parties etc. which

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 7 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 directly falls under the Trademark Class 43 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999. Trademark Class 43 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999 includes mainly with the services for
providing food, drink and temporary accommodation.
The respondent have already applied for the Trademark
Registration with the Trademark Registry in the similar
class of goods/services i.e Trademark Class 43 and the
said application is already pending for adjudication.
Further, it is most pertinent to mention here that the
Petitioner Company has not even obtained the
Trademark Registration Certificate under the said
class of good/services i.e. Trademark Class 43, relying
upon which it is contesting the instant petition but also
has not even applied for the Registration of the
Trademark with the Trademark Registry in the similar
class of goods/ services i.e Trademark Class 43 as dealt
by the Respondent company, therefore, the petitioner
is not the owner of Trademark under the said Class.
The evidence which shows that the petitioner company
has no Trademark Registration Certificate under
Trademark Class 43 is annexed as Annexure R-1.
Therefore the instant petition highly deserves to be set
aside on this score only.
…
That it is further pertinent to mention here that there are
36 different Companies registered under the Companies
Act with different ROC's with the name "Haldiram", out
of which, several are in the same business/field of
operation. No objection has been raised by the
petitioner company against the other companies till date
and furthermore, nor any company has objected to use
the word "Haldiram" by the respondent company. The
list of the total 36 Companies which has used the word
Haldiram for its registration are annexed as Annexure
R-2. Therefore, the present representation deserves to
be set aside, on this score alone.
…
10. That as discussed above that the petitioner

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 8 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 company is not the registered proprietor of a trade
mark as mentioned in Section 16(l)(b) of the
Companies Act, 2013. There the petitioner company
has no right to monopolize on the word "Haldiram"
when it does not own the Trademark under Class 43 of
Trade Marks Act, 1999. Further, the name of the
companies is not similar at all. Prima facie if we see
the name of the respondent company it transpires the
object of the same and sole area of the
business/operations. Therefore, there is no similarity
in the name of, the petitioner and respondent company
and also the nature of business is also completely
different.”

16. In response to the reply of the Defendants, the Plaintiff conducted a

search of the applications filed by the Defendants. As per the Plaintiff, the
search results showed that on 26th November, 2018, Defendant No.5- Mr.
Sumit, claiming to be the owner of Defendant No.1 firm, applied for the
‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ mark in class 43 for ‘services for providing
food and drink, temporary accommodation’ bearing application no. 4008333
dated 26th November, 2018 on a ‘Proposed To Be Used’ basis. On the same
day, Defendant No.5 also applied for the mark ‘HALDIRAM RESTRO’ in
class 43 under the same application no. 4008334. Additionally, on 22 nd July,
2019, Defendant No.5 applied for the ‘HALDIRAM'S’ mark under no.
4242196 and the ‘HALDIRAM HOTELS’ bearing registration no. 4242197,
both in class 43 for similar services, also on a ‘Proposed To Be Used’ basis.
The details of the Defendants’ registrations are provided at paragraph 28 of
the plaint.
17. In the meantime, the Defendants also registered the domain name
www.haldiramrestro.com which, according to the ‘Whois’ details, was

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 9 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 registered on 1st April, 2019.
18. Thereafter, the Plaintiff also received a complaint from one M/s D.K.
Enterprises, that it had been appointed as a C&F Agent by the Defendants for
marketing and selling their products, namely, salt, oil, soda water, etc. M/s.
D.K. Enterprises claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as a security to the
Defendants. It alleged that Defendant No.1 took the said amount as security
and then stopped responding. They submitted a complaint, that included an
agreement dated 17th April, 2019, made between Defendant No.1 & 2 and
M/s. D.K. Enterprises, which notably did not mention the ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIAWALA’ mark.
19. After making further investigations, it was further revealed that the
Defendant had also launched a Facebook page and had started announcing its
launch of Desi Ghee, Mustard oil, Aata, etc. in June, 2019.
20. All of the above proceedings led to the filing of the present suit.
21. Vide order dated 11th September, 2019, notice and summons were
issued to the Defendants, and an ex parte injunction was granted in the
following terms:
“8. Accordingly, the defendants, their partners /
proprietor(s), directors, agents / stockiest(s) /
dealers, etc. are restrained from manufacturing,
selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising,
directly or indirectly dealing in Bottled Water,
Soda, Mustered Oil, Pure Basmati Rice,. Wheat
Flour and Iodised Salt and / or any other allied /
cognate goods and / or any other goods or services
under its impugned mark HALDIRAM
BHUJIAWALA and / or HALDIRAM'S and / or any
other marks confusing and deceptively similar
mark of the plaintiffs till the next date of hearing.
They are also restrained from running website
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 10 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 under domain name www.haldiramrestro.com and
from running a face book / social media page under
the name HALDIRAM RESTRO till the next date of
hearing.”
22. The above ex-parte ad-interim order is continuing till today. Vide the
above order, this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize the goods
of the Defendants. The Local Commission was executed on 17 th September,
2019 at the Defendants’ premises situated at ‘60 - 62 Mangla Colony,
Parshuram Nagar, Ambala City, Ambala-134003, Haryana’. According to
the report dated 24th September, 2019, the Local Commissioner discovered
that the Defendants operated from their corporate office at 108, Mangla
Colony, Ambala City, Haryana. The said office had 10-12 employees and,
displayed banners and flex boards using the mark ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIAWALA’ to promote products like ghee, salt, wheat flour, packaged
water, and basmati rice. These items, along with others such as mustard oil,
were found to be sold under the mark ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA’.
23. The Local Commissioner’s interaction with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the
CEO, revealed that since January 2019, the Defendants were selling products
under the mark ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’. Defendant No. 5-Mr. Sumit
confirmed that the company started its operations in January 2019 and
registered the mark ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ in Class 30. Further
inspection at Shop No. 60-62, Mangla Colony, revealed 600 cartons of
mustard oil and other products under the said mark. All infringing packaging
materials were seized by the Local Commissioner. Additionally, expired
products from ‘HALDIRAM INC’., a sister concern of ‘HALDIRAM'S’,
were found, including Nimbu Bhujia, All in one namkeen, and others, with

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 11 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 packaging from 2018.
24. The Local Commissioner’s report placed a detailed inventory of the
items bearing the infringing marks ‘HALDIRAM’S’ and ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIYAWALA’. The same is captured in a tabulated form as below:
S. No. Description Quantity
1. Mustard Oil 5 ltr. 1 (5 ltr.)
2. Mustard Oil 2 ltr. 1 (2 ltr.)
3. (4) Ghee (empty box) 1 kg/2 ltr/5 ltr.
4. Water bottle 1 ltr.
5. Cartons of mustard oil 600 approx
6. Mustard oil canisters 15 ltrs
5 bottles
7. 4 salt packets (25 kg) (4)
S. No. Description Quantity
1. Mustard Oil 5 ltr. 1 (5 ltr.)
2. Mustard Oil 2 ltr. 1 (2 ltr.)
3. (4) Ghee (empty box) 1 kg/2 ltr/5 ltr.
4. Water bottle 1 ltr.
5. Cartons of mustard oil 600 approx
6. Mustard oil canisters 15 ltrs
5 bottles
7. 4 salt packets (25 kg) (4)

25. In December 2019, the Defendants filed their respective written

statement(s) and the affidavit of admission/denial of documents. The
procedure of admission or denial stood concluded on 27th January, 2020.
Following this, the admission/denial of additional documents submitted by
both parties was completed on 15th November, 2021. On 9th May, 2022, this
Court recorded the submission of the ld. Counsel for the Defendants that they
were willing to settle the matter, and thus the matter was adjourned from time
to time, as evident from order dated 25th May, 2022. However, as seen from
the order from 29th July 2022, mediation efforts failed, and the ld. Counsel
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 12 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 for the Defendants sought to be discharged from the matter. Vide 29th
November 2022, the ld. Joint Registrar allowed the discharge application. To
ensure the appearance of the Defendants, on 9th January 2023, fresh Court
notices were issued to be served to the Defendants. Vide order dated 16th
March 2023, this Court observed that the Defendants were not interested in
contesting the matter, and thus, proceeded ex-parte against the said
Defendants in accordance with Order IX Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code
(‘CPC’). Subsequently, as recorded by order dated 29th May, 2023, the
Plaintiff filed the affidavit of evidence of the Plaintiff’s Authorised
Representative. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 5th September, 2023.
Submissions
26. The case set forth in the written statement filed by the Defendants is
summarised as follows:
• The Plaintiff allegedly failed to disclose certain material facts, notably
that its 'HALDIRAM' marks have been opposed by the Defendants and
that the Defendants have filed rectification petition in respect of the
said marks under Section 57 of the Act before the Trade Marks
Registry. Consequently, the marks claimed by the Plaintiff as
proprietorship, are already subject to dispute by various entities.
• The plaint does not provide a clear trail of ownership of the marks from
Late Shri Ganga Bishan Agarwal to the Plaintiff.
• The Plaintiff allegedly removed the name of one of the co-owners of
the 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' mark, namely Ms. Kamla Devi
Agarwal, widow of Shri. Rameshwar Lal Agarwal, son of Shri Ganga
Bishan Agarwal, without proper consent.

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 13 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 • The Plaintiff erroneously stated the date of use of the 'HALDIRAM'
marks as 1941 in the plaint, whereas the Plaintiff's trademark
registrations indicate user since 1965.
• It is contended that the Plaintiff is not the exclusive proprietor of the
'HALDIRAM' marks, as these are purportedly owned exclusively by
other entities, and the Plaintiff's marks lack distinctive character.
• The Plaintiff allegedly failed to provide evidence establishing that the
disputed marks have acquired secondary meaning in relation to them or
demonstrate their qualification as a well-known mark.
• The Plaintiff purportedly did not submit Legal Proceeding Certificates
('LPC') for its other marks, warranting dismissal of the suit.
• The Defendants did not deny filing various trademark applications for
the 'HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA' mark and logo device.
27. The case of the Plaintiff in the replication is broadly as follows:
• The existence of frivolous applications for rectification or cancellation
against the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks does not invalidate these
marks nor does it bear relevance to the present suit. The applications in
question were filed by certain family members of the company’s
promoters or directors amidst a dispute over territorial rights to the use
of the mark ‘HALDIRAM’. However, this dispute does not challenge
the Plaintiff’s rights to use the trade mark, but rather concerns the extent
of territorial use agreed upon in the said Dissolution Deed, specifically
outside West Bengal. The Plaintiff maintains that their statutory and
common law rights to the trade mark ‘HALDIRAM’ are intact and
unaffected by these disputes, even against the parties involved in the

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 14 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 applications, as affirmed by different orders of this Court.
• The Plaintiff counters the claim that the plaint does not detail the
history of ownership of the said marks. It is clarified that it was
unnecessary to outline the entire acquisition history of the trade mark
bearing no. 285062, initially filed and registered by M/s Chandmal
Gangabishan, in which Shri Gangabishan was a partner. The
Defendants themselves have acknowledged the acquisition trail, which
is publicly available from the Trade Marks Registry, indicating no need
for detailed mention in the plaint.
• The Plaintiff specifically denies any wrongful removal of Smt. Kamla
Devi Aggarwal's name. It is highlighted that Smt. Kamla Devi
Aggarwal withdrew all allegations regarding the said Dissolution Deed
in 2016, affirming its contents. Additionally, she voluntarily withdrew
a suit claiming the Dissolution Deed was forged, evidenced by a
mediation settlement and her sworn statement before the Ld. ADJ,
which has been submitted as documents in the present suit.
• Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have failed to
justify the use of a mark identical to the Plaintiff's, suggesting that their
adoption of the mark is malafide and intended to exploit the Plaintiff's
established goodwill and reputation.
28. Defendants have stopped appearing in the matter. Mr. Neeraj Grover,
ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff made his submissions.
29. The submission by Mr. Grover, the ld. Counsel on behalf of the
Plaintiff, highlights that the sales and advertisement expenses of the Plaintiff
exceed Rs. 3,500 crores, with current sales surpassing Rs. 5,000 crores. The

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 15 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Plaintiff possesses trade mark registrations and operates a large number of
outlets both domestically and internationally. Specifically, around 40 outlets
are located within the Delhi-NCR region alone. Additionally, the Plaintiff has
secured foreign registrations for the ‘HALDIRAM's’ mark and has recently
expanded into the educational sector. Mr. Grover, ld. Counsel emphasizes that
the ‘HALDIRAM's’ mark warrants recognition as a well-known mark.
30. Regarding the disputes between family members over the use of the
mark in West Bengal, Mr. Grover, ld. Counsel submits that outside the State
of West Bengal, the mark enjoys significant reputation and goodwill and has
been extensively used. The Plaintiffs have entered into settlement terms with
the concerned family wing, which have been documented. Furthermore, he
notes that the dispute with the said parties has been conclusively resolved
following the recording of Mrs. Kamla Devi, the matriarch’s statement, before
the ld. ADJ. Another male family member had also begun using the
‘HALDIRAM's’ mark and was supplying goods to Delhi, leading to the
granting of an injunction in M/s. Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Haldiram
Bhujiawala Ltd. & Ors. (decision dated 2nd August, 2019, TM No. 13/18).
31. Insofar as the non-use of the Plaintiff’s marks in the State of West
Bengal is concerned—it is submitted that the reputation of the Plaintiff’s
‘HALDIRAM’S’ marks spills over into the State of West Bengal. It is
submitted that the residents of that state travel to other states of the country
where the Plaintiff enjoys immense goodwill, reputation, and visibility.
Plaintiff’s online presence is also noticeable in the State of West Bengal.
Thus, according to the Plaintiff, the mere fact that the Plaintiff does not sell
its goods or run its restaurants in the State of West Bengal does not in any
way cast an impediment on the Plaintiff’s ‘HALDIRAM’S’ marks from being
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 16 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 declared as ‘well-known’. It is further submitted that with the population of
West Bengal constituting around 7.8% of India’s population, the use of the
Plaintiff’s marks in the entire territory of India, excluding this 7.8%
population, does not affect the Plaintiff’s entitlement to be declared as a well-
known mark.
32. Regarding the Registrar of Companies (hereinafter, ‘ROC’)
proceedings, Mr. Grover, ld. Counsel mentions that they were resolved by an
order dated 19th December 2019, directing change of name of ‘Haldiram
Restro Pvt. Ltd.’ In conclusion, he states that the Plaintiff prays for an
injunction and a declaration of the mark as well-known, though it explicitly
does not seek such a declaration for the State of West Bengal.
33. In relation to the declaration of ‘HALDIRAM’S’ as a well-known
mark, the Plaintiff relies on the following decisions:
• Hermes International v. Crimzon Fashion Accessories Pvt. Ltd.,
(2023 SCC Online Del 883, paras 5 & 6)
• Chapter 4 Corp v. Dhanpreet Singh Trading as Punjabi Adda, (2023
SCC Online Del 4454, paras 10-15)
• Red Bull Ag v. C. Eswari & Ors., (2018 SCC Online Del 13145, paras
5,11 & 13)
• ITC Limited v. Central Park Estates Private Ltd., (2022 SCC OnLine
Del 4132, paras 22-37)
34. The Plaintiff further claims damages as provided in prayer (h) of the
plaint. The Plaintiff asserts entitlement to both exemplary and punitive
damages amounting to Rs. 2.05 crores, along with the reimbursement of
actual costs. According to the Plaintiff, the said claim arises from the

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 17 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Defendants’ activities, which necessitated the filing of the present suit and
compelled the Plaintiff to contest over 20 trade mark applications before the
Registrar of Trade Marks. Further, a significant amount of packaging
material, discovered in the Defendants’ warehouse and bearing the Plaintiff's
mark on substandard food products and water, severely tarnished and caused
substantial harm to the reputation of the Plaintiff’s ‘HALDIRAM’s’ marks.
On the issue of damages, the Plaintiff places reliance on the following
decisions:
• Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Satish Kumar, (2012 SCC OnLine Del 1378,
para 23)
• DS Confectionery Products Limited v. Nirmala Gupta and Anr.,
(2022 SCC Online Del 4013, paras 25, 28 & 30)
• H.T. Media Ltd. v. Susheel Kumar, (2018 SCC Online Del 9126,
paras 9,11 & 13)
• Crocs Inc. v. Bata India Limited, (2019 SCC OnLine Del 6808, paras
46-51)
Analysis
35. Heard and perused the evidence placed on record. The Plaintiff has led
the evidence in the present suit, and has also placed an affidavit by way of ex-
parte evidence dated 29th May, 2023. The Defendants have stopped appearing
in the present suit, though the pleadings are completed. The Defendants have
also filed their respective affidavits of admission and denial. Despite repeated
adjournments, the Defendants have chosen not to appear in the present suit.
Thus, the present is a fit case for proceeding under Order IX Rule 6 CPC read
with Order XVII Rule 3 CPC.

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 18 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 36. The Supreme Court in G. Ratna Raj v. Sri. Muthukumarasamy
Permanent Fund Ltd. [2019] 1 S.C.R. 845, observed that where the
Defendants were proceeded ex-parte and were found to not have led any
evidence in the suit, the Court could only proceed under Order XVII Rule 3
(b) read with Order XVII Rule 2 of the Code for disposal of the suit by taking
recourse to one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX of CPC, and
the same would be an ex-parte decree. Thus, this Court can proceed to pass
judgment on the basis of the pleadings and evidence filed by the Plaintiff.
37. Thus, considering the statutory and common law rights and the long
usage of the mark ‘HALDIRAM’, as also its formative marks such as
‘HALDIRAM’S’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, and both the V-
shaped mark and the Oval-shaped mark, the Plaintiff’s rights would be
severally impinged if the Defendants are permitted to use the impugned name
‘HALDIRAM RESTRO PVT. LTD’ and the websites -
www.haldiramrestro.com and www.bscindia.net.
38. The Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff did not disclose the
rectification petitions filed against the Plaintiff’s trade mark registrations is
unfounded. This is evident as the Plaintiff has explicitly included in their
plaint all details regarding the applications filed by the Defendants for the
identical ‘HALDIRAM’S’ mark. This move by the Defendants is a diversion
aimed at avoiding the central issue: they have been exploiting the Plaintiff’s
reputation for their own commercial benefit, and thus have proceeded to apply
for registrations in respect of the said mark.
39. Moreover, in terms of Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the Plaintiff has placed
on record LPCs issued by the Trade Marks Registry for both the Oval-shaped
and the V-shaped marks. These documents conclusively illustrate the flow of
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 19 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 rights associated with both marks. Therefore, the defense presented by the
Defendants in their written statement lacks foundation.
40. Further, after perusing all the pleadings on record, an examination of
the competing marks and logos reveals that the marks adopted by the
Defendants are identical to the Plaintiff’s mark ‘HALDIRAM’. Further, the
services for which the Defendants are using the said mark are identical,
namely eateries and restaurants. An identical mark, ‘HALDIRAM,’ is being
used for identical services and within identical trade channels or segments,
thus, satisfying the triple identity test.
41. The various registrations and a demonstrable long usage of the mark
‘HALDIRAM’, as also the goodwill vesting in the said mark, entitles the
Plaintiff to a permanent injunction. Thus, the Defendants, and all others acting
for and on their behalf are restrained from, in any manner, using the impugned
marks ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ and/or ‘HALDIRAM’s’ or any other
marks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks. Accordingly, a
decree of permanent injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff against all
the Defendants, in terms of paragraphs 47(b) to 47(d) of the plaint.
42. Further, the Defendants shall delivery up for purposes of destruction of
all material bearing the impugned marks ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’
and/or HALDIRAM'S including packagings, pouches, labels, dies, boxes,
cartons, paper bags, wrappers, banners, hoardings and any other infringing
material used by the Defendants within one week. The destruction may be
carried out in the presence of a Local Commissioner. For the said purpose, if
the Plaintiff wishes, they are free to move an application.

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 20 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Damages
43. In the context of assessment of damages, the settled legal position is
that the Local Commissioner’s report can be read in evidence in terms of
Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC. This position has been settled by the recent
decision of the Supreme Court in Committee of Management Anjuman
Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi v. Rakhi Singh (2023: INSC:702), wherein the
Supreme Court has observed that the report of the Local Commissioner and
the evidence taken by him/her constitute evidence in the suit and form a part
of the record. The evidentiary value of any report of the Commissioner is a
matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections including cross-
examination. Accordingly, in the present case, the report of the Local
Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied upon by the Court as
evidence to assess the damages, as the same stands unchallenged.
44. Moreover, the Defendants have deliberately chosen to stay away from
the proceedings merely to ensure that it is not required to produce its accounts.
The Defendants cannot be allowed to enjoy a premium for their dishonesty.
In M/s Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed & Anr [decision dated 9th
September, 2016, CS (OS) 3295/2014], this Court observed as follows:
“21. The court is mindful of the fact that in such a
situation where the defendant chooses to stay away
from the court proceedings, he should not be
permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion.
Any view to the contrary would result in a situation
where a compliant defendant who appears in court
pursuant to summons being issued, participates in
the proceedings and submits his account books, etc.,
for assessment of damages, would end up on a
worse footing, vis-a-vis a defendant who chooses to
conveniently stay away after being served with the

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 21 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 summons in the suit. That was certainly not the
intention of the Statute. Section 135 (1) of the
Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that relief that may
be granted in any suit for infringement of or for
passing off includes injunction and at the option of
the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits.
The plaintiffs in the present case have opted for
claiming damages and have established beyond
doubt that they have suffered damages on account of
the conduct of the defendants which are a result of
infringement of their trademark and copyright...”

45. A perusal of the Local Commissioner’s report shows that the inventory
prepared by the LC is as under:
S. No. Description Quantity
1. Mustard Oil 5 ltr. 1 (5 ltr.)
2. Mustard Oil 2 ltr. 1 (2 ltr.)
3. (4) Ghee (empty box) 1 kg/2 ltr/5 ltr.
4. Water bottle 1 ltr.
5. Cartons of mustard oil 600 approx
6. Mustard oil canisters 15 ltrs
5 bottles
7. 4 salt packets (25 kg) (4)
S. No. Description Quantity
1. Mustard Oil 5 ltr. 1 (5 ltr.)
2. Mustard Oil 2 ltr. 1 (2 ltr.)
3. (4) Ghee (empty box) 1 kg/2 ltr/5 ltr.
4. Water bottle 1 ltr.
5. Cartons of mustard oil 600 approx
6. Mustard oil canisters 15 ltrs
5 bottles
7. 4 salt packets (25 kg) (4)

46. The Local Commissioner’s report also shows that there was extensive
use of the marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ by the

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 22 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Defendants. The said marks were being used for a range of products, listed as
follows:
• salt,
• mustard oil,
• wheat flour,
• bottled water
• ghee
• Basmati rice

47. The inventory made by the Local Commissioner also revealed a

sufficient packaging material, including cartons of mustard oil bearing the
name ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, as well as mustard oil canisters of 15
litres and 5 litres. Additionally, several products from HALDIRAM INC.
bearing the mark ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ mark were found, such as
All-in-One Namkeen, Boondi, Soan Papdi, Mini Samosa, Mustard Oil, and
Signature Salted Peanuts. The relevant portion of the report filed by the Local
Commissioner is as follows:
“5. On inspection, we found several products such as
Ghee, mustard oil, salt, water bottle, the said products
were under the trade mark of HALDIRAM
BHUJIWALA. The photographs of the products under
the trade mam of HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA are
marked and annexed as ANNEXURE A-5.
6. After conducting the inspection of the premises the
undersigned spoke to Mr. Rajesh Kumar who claimed to
be the CEO of the Defendant's Company. He told the
undersigned that he has opened the Company in the
name of Berachah Sales Corporation, Berachah Foods
India Pvt. Ltd. And Haldiram Restro Private Limited in
January, 2019 and since then they are selling products
like salt, mustard oil, wheat flour, bottled water under
the registered trademark of HALDIRAM

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 23 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 BHUJIAWALA. The true copy of the statement of Rajesh
Kumar and the CD video of the conversation are
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A-6.
7. Thereafter, the undersigned recorded the statement of
Mr. Sumit, who is the Director of the Defendant
Company. He informed the undersigned that the
company started its operation from January, 2019. He
further told that the Defendant Company got the
trademark i.e HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA registered
under Class 30. The true copy of the statement of Mr.
Sumit is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
A-7.
The undersigned requested for keys of Shop No. 60-62,
Mangla Colony, Parushuram Nagar, Ambala City from
the CEO namely Mr. Rajesh Kumar. He send Mr. Sumit
and Mr. Saurabh (Directors of Defendant Company)
along with the undersigned to the aforesaid shop, after
opening of the shutter, the undersigned found stack of
folded cartons of mustard oil bearing the name of
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA kept inside the shop,
there were approximately 600 folded cartons of
mustard oil. Thereafter, the undersigned found
mustard oil canisters of 15 liters and 5 liters each, 4
sacks of salt (25 kgs) each under the name of
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA. Photographs of the
products found in the godown are annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE A-8. The undersigned
seized all the infringing packaging material sealed them
in carton under my signature in superdarinama.
Inventory list of the infringing products and
superdarinama bearing signature of the undersigned is
annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE A- 9.
8. Several products of HALDIRAM INC. were also
found like Nimbu Bujia, All in one namkeen, Boondi,
Soan Papdi, Mini Samosa, Mustard Oil and i Signature
salted peanuts at the shop in question. HALDIRAM INC.
is sister concern of HALDIRAM'S. It is pertinent to
mention here that the packaging of the products was of

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 24 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 2018 and the items were expired. The photographs of
products of HALDIRAM INC. is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE A-10.”
48. Some of the images of the found at the premises is set out below:

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 25 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 26 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 27 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 49. Thus, according to the report, the Defendants have been operating since
January, 2019. Certain products were found having expiry date of 2018. In
addition, the CEO of the Defendant company, namely, Rajesh Kumar
mentioned that they got the said mark registered under class 30 sometime in
2018 itself. In or around March, 2019, it came to the knowledge of the

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 28 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 Plaintiff that the Defendant No. 1 was also using the name ‘HALDIRAM
RESTRO’, and further registered the said name. As can be seen from the
above, the illegality is further compounded with the filing of trade mark
applications by the Defendants. Thus, the present is a fit case for grant of
substantial damages in favour of the Plaintiff.
50. Exemplary damages fall within the category of punitive damages and
are typically awarded in extraordinary cases, taking into account the severity
of the misconduct. In the context exemplary damages, a passage from the
decision of House of Lords in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, [1972] A.C.
1027 is relevant, and the same is extracted below:
“As between “punitive” or “exemplary,” one should, I
would suppose, choose one to the exclusion of the other,
since it is never wise to use two quite interchangeable
terms to denote the same thing. Speaking for myself, I
prefer “exemplary,” not because “punitive” is
necessarily inaccurate, but “exemplary” better
expresses the policy of the law as expressed in the
cases. It is intended to teach the defendant and others
that “tort does not pay” by demonstrating what
consequences the law inflicts rather than simply to
make the defendant suffer an extra penalty for what he
has done, although that does, of course, precisely
describe its effect.

The expression “at large” should be used in general to

cover all cases where awards of damages may include
elements for loss of reputation, injured feelings, bad or
good conduct by either party, or punishment, and where
in consequence no precise limit can be set in extent. It
would be convenient if, as the appellants' counsel did at
the hearing. it could be extended to include damages for
pain and suffering or loss of amenity. Lord Devlin uses
the term in this sense in Rookes v. Barnard [1964] A.C.

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 29 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 1129, 1221, when he defines the phrase as meaning all
cases where “the award is not limited to the pecuniary
loss that can be specifically proved.” But I suspect that
he was there guilty of a neologism. If I am wrong, it is a
convenient use and should be repeated. Finally, it is
worth pointing out, though I doubt if a change of
terminology is desirable or necessary, that there is
danger in hypostatising “compensatory,” “punitive,”
“exemplary” or “aggravated” damages at all. The
epithets are all elements or considerations which may,
but with the exception of the first need not, be taken
into account in assessing a single sum. They are not
separate heads to be added mathematically to one
another.”

51. On the aspect of exemplary damages, following the decisions of the

House of Lords in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, [1972] A.C. 1027 and
Rookes v. Barnard [1969] A.C. 1129, the ld. Division Bench of this Court in
Hindustan Unilever v. Reckitt Benckiser India [RFA(OS) 50/2008, decision
dated 31st January, 2014] observed as follows:
“67. In India, the Supreme Court has affirmed the
principles in Rookes (supra) and Cassel (supra).
Interestingly, however, the application in those cases
has been in the context of abuse of authority leading to
infringement of Constitutional rights or by public
authorities (ref. Ghaziabad Development Authority v.
Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 6; Lucknow Development
Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1994 SCC (1) 243). As yet,
however, the Supreme Court has not indicated the
standards which are to be applied while awarding
punitive or exemplary damages in libel, tortuous claims
with economic overtones such as slander of goods, or in
respect of intellectual property matters. The
peculiarities of such cases would be the courts‟ need
to evolve proper standards to ensure proportionality in

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 30 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 the award of such exemplary or punitive damages. The
caution in Cassel that “[d]amages remain a civil, not a
criminal, remedy, even where an exemplary award is
appropriate, and juries should not be encouraged to
lose sight of the fact that in making such an award they
are putting money into a plaintiff’s pocket….” can
never be lost sight of. Furthermore – and perhaps most
crucially –the punitive element of the damages should
follow the damages assessed otherwise (or general)
damages; exemplary damages can be awarded only if
the Court is “satisfied that the punitive or exemplary
element is not sufficiently met within the figure which
they have arrived at for the plaintiff’s solatium”. In
other words, punitive damages should invariably
follow the award of general damages (by that the Court
meant that it could be an element in the determination
of damages, or a separate head altogether, but never
completely without determination of general
damages).
68….
To award punitive damages, the courts should follow the
categorization indicated in Rookes (supra) and further
grant such damages only after being satisfied that the
damages awarded for the wrongdoing is inadequate in
the circumstances, having regard to the three
categories in Rookes and also following the five
principles in Cassel. The danger of not following this
step by step reasoning would be ad hoc judge centric
award of damages, without discussion of the extent of
harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff, on a mere whim
that the defendant‟s action is so wrong that it has a
“criminal” propensity or the case RFA (OS) 50/2008
Page 66 merely falls in one of the three categories
mentioned in Rookes (to quote Cassel again – such event
“does not of itself entitle the jury to award damages
purely exemplary in character”).”

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 31 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 52. Further, even if the inventory found is assumed to be inventory for a
month, considering the nature of infringement, it would mean that the
Defendants were carrying out extensive business. Some of the products had
expiry dates of 2018, so clearly the Defendants commenced business much
earlier than 2019. In the present suit, the Defendants have not led evidence
and have stopped appearing. The actual accounts are not available and the
Defendants cannot be put in a better position by not appearing. It is obvious
that there is no defense for using such an established brand in the manner as
is being used by the Defendants. Considering the manner in which food
products of an established brand is being misused, this Court is of the opinion
that even exemplary damages are justified. Hence, keeping in view the
inventory of the infringing products and the conduct of the Defendants,
damages of Rs. 50 lakhs are awarded in favour of the Plaintiff, in addition to
costs.
53. Further, the Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil
Nadu, (2021 INSC 492) has categorically held that award of costs should
ordinarily follow in commercial matters, and should serve the purpose of
curbing frivolous and vexatious litigation. In view of the decision of the
Supreme Court, the Plaintiff is also entitled to actual costs, in terms of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules,
2018 read with IPD Rules, recoverable from the Defendants. Let the Plaintiff
file its bill of costs in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High
Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within two weeks. Let the same be
computed and added to final decretal amount.
54. Thus, the present suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of
Rs.50 lakhs on account of damages and Rs.2 lakhs are awarded as costs. Let
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 32 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 the decree sheet be drawn up, in the above terms.
Well-known mark declaration
55. In so far as the prayer for declaration seeking recognition as a ‘well-
known mark’ is concerned, Section 2(zg) of the Act defines a well-known
mark as under:
“(zg) “well known trade mark”, in relation to any goods
or services, means a mark which has become so to the
substantial segment of the public which uses such goods
or receives such services that the use of such mark in
relation to other goods or services would be likely to be
taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade
or rendering of services between those goods or services
and a person using the mark in relation to the first-
mentioned goods or services.”

56. Further, Section 11(6) of the Act lays down the factors to be considered
for declaration of a mark as a ‘well-known’. The said provision reads as under:
“(6) The Registrar shall, while determining whether a
trade mark is a well-known trade mark, take into
account any fact which he considers relevant for
determining a trade mark as a well-known trade mark
including—
(i) the knowledge or recognition of that trade mark in
the relevant section of the public including knowledge
in India obtained as a result of promotion of the trade
mark;
(ii) the duration, extent and geographical area of any
use of that trade mark;
(iii) the duration, extent and geographical area of any
promotion of the trade mark, including advertising or
publicity and presentation, at fairs or exhibition of the
goods or services to which the trade mark applies;
(iv) the duration and geographical area of any
registration of or any application for registration of that
trade mark under this Act to the extent that they reflect
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 33 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 the use or recognition of the trade mark;
(v) the record of successful enforcement of the rights in
that trade mark, in particular the extent to which the
trade mark has been recognised as a well-known trade
mark by any court or Registrar under that record.”

57. In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Dodia, 2011 (46) PTC 244 (Del), a ld.
Single Judge of this Court elaborated upon the principles for declaration of a
mark as well known. The relevant extracts of the said decision are as under:
“5. A well known trademark is a mark which is widely
known to the relevant general public and enjoys a
comparatively high reputation amongst them. On
account of advancement of technology, fast access to
information, manifold increase in international
business, international travel and advertising/publicity
on internet, television, magazines and periodicals,
which now are widely available throughout the world,
of goods and services during fairs/exhibitions, more
and more persons are coming to know of the
trademarks, which are well known in other countries
and which on account of the quality of the products
being sold under those names and extensive
promotional and marketing efforts have come to enjoy
trans-border reputation. It is, therefore, being
increasingly felt that such trademark needs to be
protected not only in the countries in which they are
registered but also in the countries where they are
otherwise widely known in the relevant circles so that
the owners of well known trademarks are encouraged
to expand their business activities under those marks
to other jurisdictions as well. The relevant general
public in the case of a well known trademark would
mean consumers, manufacturing and business circles
and persons involved in the sale of the goods or service
carrying such a trademark.
6. The doctrine of dilution, which has recently gained
momentous, particularly in respect of well known
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 34 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 trademarks emphasises that use of a well known mark
even in respect of goods or services, which are not
similar to those provided by the trademark owner,
though it may not cause confusion amongst the
consumer as to the source of goods or services, may
cause damage to the reputation which the well known
trademark enjoys by reducing or diluting the
trademark's power to indicate the source of goods or
services.
7. Another reason for growing acceptance of
transborder reputation is that a person using a well
known trademark even in respect of goods or services
which are not similar tries to take unfair advantage of
the trans-border reputation which that brand enjoys in
the market and thereby tries to exploit and capitalize on
the attraction and reputation which it enjoys amongst
the consumers. When a person uses another person's
well known trademark, he tries to take advantage of the
goodwill that well known trademark enjoys and such an
act constitutes an unfair competition.”

58. Further, this Court in Disruptive Health Solutions v. Registrar of

Trade Marks [C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM)] 133/2022, decision dated 8th July
2022] discussed test of distinctiveness of trade marks, wherein it was
observed that in the spectrum of distinctiveness, the first category of marks is
of arbitrary, fanciful and invented marks, which is of absolute distinctiveness.
The relevant extract of the said decision is as follows:
“10. The general rule regarding distinctiveness is that a
mark is capable of being protected if either it is inherently
distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through
secondary meaning. In the spectrum of distinctiveness, the
first category of marks is of arbitrary, fanciful and
invented marks which is of absolute distinctiveness.
Similarly, suggestive marks can also be registered due to
their inherent distinctiveness. Descriptive marks can be
registered as trademarks provided secondary meaning is
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 35 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 established. Insofar as descriptive marks are concerned,
just because some portion of the mark may have some
reference or indication as to the products or services
intended for, the same may not be liable to be rejected
straightaway. In such a case, the merits of the marks
would have to be considered along with the extent of
usage. Other registrations of the applicant would also
have a bearing on the capability of the mark obtaining
registration. The owner of a mark is always entitled to
expand the goods and services, as a natural consequence
in expansion of business.”

59. Considering the factors delineated under Section 11(6) of the Act, this
Court on various instances has considered the grant of declaration of ‘well-
known’ mark.
• In ITC Ltd. (supra), after considering the legal position regarding the
protection of well-known marks in India and the US, this Court
declared 'BUKHARA' as a well-known mark. The Court held that the
mark 'BUKHARA' originated in India and enjoys substantial goodwill
and reputation not only among Indians but also among foreigners who
travel to India and carry back the said reputation.
• In Chapter 4 Corp. (supra), this Court declared the ‘SUPREME’ red-
box device mark as a ‘well-known’ mark in respect of apparel and
clothing. The said declaration is limited to the ‘SUPREME’ red-box
logo and does not extend to the word itself.
• In Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Manoj Kumar Jain (2023:DHC:6479), this
Court declared the mark ‘BETNESOL’ as a ‘well-known mark’ in
respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal items as also cognate and
allied products.
60. Keeping in mind the above decisions, in the present suit, the Plaintiff

CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 36 of 40

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 has filed the following evidence to demonstrate that the mark
‘HALDIRAM’s’ and is well-known:
• The Plaintiff and its sister concern’s sales figures total to over Rs. 3500
crores in the year 2017- 18 with over Rs. 50 crores spent on
advertisement during the said years. The sales figures are presently over
Rs. 5000 Crores annually. The year wise sales turnover and
advertisement certificates have been filed along with the plaint. In
relation to ‘Haldiram Products Pvt. Ltd.’, the sales and advertisement
expenses are as follows:
Financial Year Sales (In Rs.) Advertisement (Rs.)
2007-2008 492,212,394.00 8,819,041.00
2008-2009 579,550,506.70 9,204,170.00
2009-2010 730,836,753.46 6,816,394.68
2010-2011 976,544,724.88 2,909,141.38
2011-2012 1,087,577,597.46 5,638,296.32
2012-2013 1,143,974,429 5,946,725.99
2013-2014 1,225,155,137.23 5,344,039.88
2014-2015 1,438,712,923.59 9,378,318.54
2015-2016 1,593,434,866.00 6,223,646.27
2016-2017 1,769,023,062.00 8,428.257.00
2017-2018 2,004,288,417.00 12,164,818.00
• In addition to the above information provided, the Plaintiff has also
been awarded on different occasions with accolades such as the Food
Innovation Excellence Awards -2017, which have been exhibited as
Ex. PW-1/9 to PW-1/21.
• The Plaintiff has also placed on record the decision titled ‘Haldiram
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 37 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. S.A. Food Products & Ors.’ [CS(COMM)
217/2019, dated 29th April, 2019] where this Court has protected the
Plaintiff’s mark, and has injuncted the Defendants, recognising the
statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiff. The decisions have
been exhibited as Exhibit-PW-1/22 & Exhibit-PW-1/23.
61. Further, the Plaintiff also places reliance on the concept of spill-over
reputation, where a mark’s recognition and prestige transcend national
borders, influencing consumer behavior in regions where the brand may not
have a direct commercial presence. In terms of the decisions of the Supreme
Court in N R Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation, (1996) 5 SCC 714, Milmet
Of tho Industries v. Allergan, (2004) 12 SCC 624 and the decision of this
Court in ITC Ltd. (supra), the concept of protection of marks based on
transborder reputation is well-settled.
62. In the present suit, the Plaintiff claims a well-known declaration even
in respect of an area, where the right of the Plaintiff does not extend- i.e. West
Bengal. The situation is peculiar in the sense that- even though the Plaintiff
does not hold rights in respect of the mark ‘HALDIRAM’/ ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIWALA’ in West Bengal, it claims that the said mark is ‘well-known’,
throughout the territory of India, including West Bengal.
63. This Court, having considered the argument presented by the Plaintiff
for the declaration of the 'HALDIRAM' and 'HALDIRAM BHUJIWALA'
marks as ‘well-known’ across the entirety of India, including the state of West
Bengal—where the Plaintiff does not exercise exclusive rights—finds a
foundation in the broader principles of trade mark law (to prevent confusion)
and the doctrine of spill-over reputation. The Plaintiff’s case presents a unique
scenario where ‘HALDIRAM’S’ reputation demands a flexible and evolved
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 38 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 understanding of territorial rights in the age of global connectivity and
changing market dynamics. There is no doubt that the 'HALDIRAM'S' brand,
with its origins deeply rooted in India's rich culinary tradition, has not only
established a presence within the national market but has also extended its
influence globally, transcending geographical, cultural, and national
boundaries. As evidenced by the documents placed on record, Plaintiff’s
global footprint is indicative of the brand's robust spill-over reputation, where
the authenticity of 'HALDIRAM'S' products resonate with a diverse audience,
including in those regions where the brand does not have legal presence.
64. This Court is of the opinion that the concept of a 'well-known' mark is
‘dynamic’. A well-known mark has the ability to imbue products with
distinctiveness and assurance of quality that extends beyond mere
geographical confines. The Plaintiff exports its products not just within Asia,
but to a large span of other countries. In this context, the claim for
'HALDIRAM' to be recognized as a 'well-known' mark throughout India,
inclusive of West Bengal, is a testament to the Plaintiff’s cultural and
commercial imprint. Such dynamism aims to safeguard the goodwill and trust
a mark commands among consumers, irrespective of territorial divisions. By
granting such a declaration, the Court is also aware of the present realities of
consumer perception in relation to the average consumers in the food and
snacks industry.
65. Moreover, the fact that there may be a division between certain family
members – territorially, would not affect the decision in declaring the mark as
well-known, as it is the reputation and good-will of the mark across products
and services that is being recognised by a well-known declaration.
66. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that based on the averments in the
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 39 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08
 plaint, the documents on record, and the reputation of the ‘HALDIRAM'S’
mark and logo as gleaned from the record, it is clear that the Plaintiffs' mark
and logo 'HALDIRAM', as well as the Oval-shaped mark, have acquired
‘well-known’ status. Considering the use of the mark since the 1960s in the
food industry, and the factors outlined above, the mark and logo
'HALDIRAM' have achieved the status of a 'well-known mark'. Accordingly,
a decree of declaration declaring the mark 'HALDIRAM', as well as the Oval-
shaped mark, as a ‘well-known’ mark in respect of food items as well as in
respect of restaurants and eateries, is granted. The Oval-shaped mark, which
is declared well-known, is extracted below:

67. Considering the declaration granted in favour of the Plaintiff, and in

view of the decree passed today, all trade mark applications filed by the
Defendants seeking registration of ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM
BHUJIYAWALA’ shall be rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks. Let the
Plaintiff provide the details of the applications filed by the Defendants in
relation to the said marks within one week to the Office of the CGPDTM.
68. The suit is decreed in the above terms. Let the decree sheet be drawn
up. Suit is accordingly disposed of. All pending applications are also disposed
of.
69. Let the present order be communicated to the Registrar of Trade Marks
at llc-ipo@gov.in.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
APRIL 02, 2024/dn
CS(COMM) 495/2019 Page 40 of 40
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2024
18:06:08