Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant judgment granting interim injunction in favour of Empire Spices and Foods Limited in a trademark infringement case involving the “RAM BANDHU” mark. The judgment emphasizes the protection of essential features of registered trademarks and addresses the complex issue of using religious names in commercial marks.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh made key observations on trademark infringement, exclusivity claims over parts of device marks, and the use of religious names in commercial contexts while deciding Interim Application No. 2119 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 366 of 2025.
The Court addressed an application filed by Empire Spices and Foods Limited seeking interim relief for infringement of trademark and copyright against Sanjay Bhimraoji Deshmukh, trading as M/s. Sanskriti Spices. The Court noted, “The instant application seeking interim relief for infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off has been moved after notice to the Defendant.”
On the plaintiff’s proprietary rights, the Court observed, “The history set out by the Plaintiff is that in the year 1972, one Ramvilas Motilal Rathi coined and adopted the trademark ‘RAM BANDHU’, which was used in relation to spices, papad, pickles, and other food products. The registration of the mark ‘RAM BANDHU’ was applied for on 25th January 1993 by Rambandhu Masalewale Pvt. Ltd., with user claim from 1st December 1972, and was granted registration on 13th October 2006.”
The Court highlighted the defendant’s adoption of a similar mark, stating, “In the year 2023, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant’s goods under the impugned mark ‘SHREE RAM BANDHU’, which led to issuance of further notices on 27th March 2023 and 15th October 2024.”
In analyzing the similarity between the rival marks, the Court made critical observations: “Upon prima facie comparison, as far as the Plaintiff’s registered trademark is concerned, the device mark has an elliptical shape with a colour combination of red, white, and black. The Defendant’s mark uses a negligible yellow background in addition to a similar colour combination of red, white, and black.”
The Court emphasized the test for trademark infringement: “Upon perusal of the Plaintiff’s mark, what strikes the eye immediately are the words ‘RAM BANDHU’ written in white against a red background, which form its essential feature. Infringement takes place when the essential features of the mark have been copied.”
Addressing the defendant’s key defense regarding exclusivity over parts of device marks, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products Ltd., stating: “The Court, therefore, has to examine the mark as a whole. As part of this evaluation, it must determine what is/are the prominent and/or essential features of the mark taken as a whole.”
On the crucial issue of religious names in trademarks, the Court distinguished this case from earlier precedents: “Both in Bhole Baba (supra) and Freudenberg Gala Household Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Courts dealt with standalone names of Hindu deities. In the present case, the Plaintiff’s device mark is not the sole name of a deity but a combination of two common words—‘Ram’ and ‘Bandhu’.”
The Court further clarified: “The word ‘Ram’ refers to the Hindu God and ‘Bandhu’ is a Sanskrit word meaning friendship/kinship/relationship. When used separately, there can be no exclusivity claimed in the words ‘Ram’ and ‘Bandhu’. However, when used in combination, the name of the deity loses its religious significance and becomes registrable.”
Regarding the defense of delay and acquiescence, the Court noted: “The cease-and-desist notice was issued in 2014 and the suit was filed in 2025, which the Defendant claims militates against the grant of interim relief. However, it is settled law that mere delay cannot bar the grant of injunction in trademark infringement matters.”
The Court rejected the defendant’s claim of honest adoption: “The Defendant claims bona fide adoption based on the common practice of using names of deities in business. However, this is flawed, as the Defendant’s mark is not a standalone name of Lord Ram but the coined term ‘RAM BANDHU’.”
In its final directive, the Court stated: “A prima facie case has been established that the Plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the device mark ‘RAM BANDHU’. If interim relief is not granted, irreparable harm and loss will be caused to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant’s trade label is deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion.”
Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction, ordering that:
“The Respondent, by itself and/or its partners/proprietors/servants/agents/officers/dealers/distributors and/or any other person claiming through or under such Respondent, is restrained from using the impugned mark ‘SHREE RAM BANDHU’ or any mark identical or phonetically/deceptively similar to the Applicant’s trademark ‘RAM BANDHU’.”
The Court also addressed the copyright aspect, restraining the defendant:
“…from using the pirated artwork ‘SHREE RAM BANDHU’ as depicted in Exhibit V to the Plaint and/or any other similar artwork, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s original artistic work ‘RAM BANDHU’.”
However, the Court granted a stay on the operation of the order for four weeks, stating:
“A request was made for staying the order for four weeks. Though opposed by the Plaintiff’s counsel, I am inclined to stay the order for this period.”
Counsel Appearance:
- For Plaintiff: Mr. Pranshul Dube and Ms. Asma Nadaf
- For Defendant: Mr. Amit Jamsandekar, Ms. Archita Gharat, and Mr. Vighnesh Kamat, instructed by Mr. Shoeb Parkar
Case Title: Empire Spices and Foods Limited vs. Sanjay Bhimraoji Deshmukh
![Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2022/04/lj_2823_Divorce.jpg)
