Judgement brief
Commercial court, Jaipur
SODHANI SWEETS PVT. LTD.
VS
SS SODHANI SWEETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD.
Plaintiff was carrying a business on the TRADEMARK “SODHANI SWEETS” from 1991 of sweets, milk,
snacks, etc. and enjoying common right over “SODHANI” and registered under various classes 23, 30,
35, 43. Defendant started a restaurant, shop and hall under name "SS SODHANI SWEETS AND FOODS
PVT LTD.” Johri Lal (plaintiff 2) and Rujkumar (Defendant 2) are brothers, and got the name
“SODHANI” from their late father’s shop M/S SODHANI SWEETS started in 1950. Defendant adopted
same name, Logo in similar font and colour. TM registry rejected SS SODHANI SWEET being similar to
SODHANI SWEETS.
In 2006 entered in MOU transferring all the rights, goodwill and assets of SODHANI SWEETS to
Rajkumar (defendant 2) with consent of all members and brothers. In 2010, defended went to
register SS SODHANI but rejected by attorney by mistake. He was carrying the business of SS
SODHANI SWEETS which was managed by MS SODHANI SWEETS his father’s shop.
He open new company with the same name and filled application for registration of SS SODHANI
SWEETS under class 30 and 29 which were rejected by registry due to some mistakes. Plaintiff
concealed the facts from court that Defendant have previously applied for registration of TM
“SODHANI” on his name but was rejected and is being used already and before him in the market.
Plaintiff concealed that SS SODHANI was not accepted and is a senior to plaintiff mark.
NO TRADER CAN EVER CLAIM MONOPOLY OVER THE NAME “SODHANI” AS IS COMMON SURNAME
AS PER SEC 35 OF TM ACT. Plaintiff committed fraud to TM Registry and on defendant 2. NO
INJECTIONS WERE AWARDED AND THE APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED.
COURT OBSERVED:
Before the demise of Ghasi Lal in 1875 both plaintiff and defendant use to sit at the shop with him.
After his demise Plaintiff and Defendant both continued to run the business but the plaintiff
continued till the starting of a separate business of M/S SODANI SWEET, but defendant continued to
carry the business.
Court also observed that agreement made in 2006 for the transfer of assets, goodwill and business
shows his sole ownership and authority over the business but Court said that agreement has nothing
to do with the right of Trademark. And held that TM SODHANI is not granted to anyone.
Plaintiff can be estopped at this stage from raising objections to the recent opening of Defendant.
REASONING:
For finalising a dispute 3 points need to be taken into consideration:
1. PRIMA FACIA – the facts and evidences show a strong prima facia in favour of plaintiff.
2. BALANCE OF CONVIENECE – Plaintiff will suffer the inconvenience due to the opening of new
opening of defendant. So ruled in favour of plaintiff
3. IRREPERABLE INJURY- The new opening of defendant may create confusion in people which
may cause a huge injury to plaintiff.
Final order-
Court said it is a family name and hence can’t restrict someone from using it, but court may restrict if
such usage cause damage to other party.
Court partially accepted the application of plaintiff for Temporary Injunction with certain conditions
and putted restrictions from expanding its business till the disposal of ongoing suit.
Court allowed to use the TM for the new shop only if the font, size, colour is different and the
defendant need to add name of the directors or owners of business as a prefix or suffix to SODHANI
SWEETS. Asking to use different design, colour and style for word “S”.
