Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on the use of the trademark 'Shree Kshetrapal' / 'Kshetrapal Construction' by two individuals in the construction business in Gujarat. The plaintiff, Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker, claimed exclusive proprietary rights over the device mark 'Shree Kshetrapal' registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in Class 37, and asserted continuous and extensive use since 2015 through various entities and projects in Banaskantha and Kutch districts. He alleged that the defendant, Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra, had commenced business in May 2025 under the deceptively similar trade name 'Kshetrapal Construction', thereby infringing his registered trademark and committing passing off. The plaintiff accordingly filed Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2025 in the Civil Court at Bhuj-Kutch seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs, along with an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court initially granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 15.05.2025 restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark. However, upon the defendant's appearance, the defendant filed a written statement, reply to the injunction application, and an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 to vacate the ex-parte order. The defendant contended that he had been carrying on construction business since 2014 under 'Kshetrapal Construction', and that from 2017 until April 2025 the parties were business partners jointly undertaking several projects using the trade name 'Kshetrapal'. The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts before the Trade Marks Registry, specifically that the Registrar had raised objections under Sections 9(1)(b) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the plaintiff had clarified that registration was sought only for the device mark and not the word per se, thereby precluding any exclusive claim over the word 'Kshetrapal'. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not produced relevant joint project documents. The trial court, after considering the rival submissions, by order dated 12.08.2025 rejected the interim injunction application and vacated the earlier ex-parte order. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present Appeal from Order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal was heard by Justice Niral R. Mehta, who reserved judgment on 16.12.2025 and pronounced it on 16.03.2026. The judgment, as available, sets out the facts and contentions of both parties in detail but does not record the final decision or reasoning in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2025, considering the plaintiff's registered device mark and the defendant's claim of joint business and prior use.
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 549
R/Appeal from Order No. 207 of 2025 with Civil Application (Stay) No. 1 of 2025
Harshit Tolia, Pratik K. Chaudhary, Kamal B. Trivedi, Shivang A. Thacker, A.R. Thacker
Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Trademark infringement and passing off suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Kshetrapal Construction' and related reliefs pending suit.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff claimed exclusive proprietary rights over the 'Shree Kshetrapal' trademark, alleged the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark caused confusion and diluted goodwill.
Previous Decisions
Trial court initially granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 15.05.2025, but after defendant's appearance and reply, rejected the interim injunction application on 12.08.2025, vacating the earlier order.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
Whether the plaintiff's registered device mark conferred exclusive right to prevent defendant's use of 'Kshetrapal Construction' in light of defendant's claim of joint business and prior use.
Whether the plaintiff's non-disclosure of objections raised by the Trade Marks Registry constituted suppression of material facts warranting denial of injunction.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that it was the proprietor and user of the device mark 'Shree Kshetrapal' with valid registration since 2015, and that the defendant's use of 'Kshetrapal Construction' was deceptively similar, causing infringement and passing off.
Defendant contended that it had been using 'Kshetrapal Construction' since 2014, that the parties were business partners jointly using the 'Kshetrapal' name multiple projects from 2017 to April 2025, and that the plaintiff suppressed material facts before the Trade Marks Registry regarding the nature of registration.
Judgment Excerpts
The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiff is the adopter, proprietor and user of the device mark / trademark and is inter alia engaged in the business of construction and renovation of buildings, construction and repair works, residential and commercial building construction, construction of hotels, restaurants and resorts, as well as land development, since the year 2015.
According to the defendant, the defendant has been carrying on the business of construction under the trade name 'Kshetrapal Construction' since the year 2014.
It is further the case of the defendant that from the year 2017 till April, 2025, the plaintiff and the defendant were business partners and had jointly undertaken several construction projects, wherein the trade name 'Kshetrapal' was used by them jointly.
Procedural History
Plaintiff filed Trademark Suit No. 1 of 2025 before the Civil Court at Bhuj-Kutch along with an interim injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The trial court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 15.05.2025. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement, reply to the injunction application, and an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking vacating of the ex-parte injunction. After hearing both sides, the trial court by order dated 12.08.2025 rejected the interim injunction application and vacated the earlier ex-parte injunction. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred Appeal from Order No. 207 of 2025 under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which reserved judgment on 16.12.2025 and pronounced it on 16.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Trade Marks Act, 1999: Section 9(1)(b), Section 11
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLIII Rule 1(r), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2
