Introduction

In the dynamic landscape of commerce, trademark disputes often arise, reflecting the intense competition among businesses to establish their brand identities. One notable case that provides insight into the complexities of trademark law is Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2026:DHC:143), decided by the High Court of Delhi on January 9, 2026. This case revolves around allegations of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition, offering a rich backdrop for understanding the legal framework that governs these issues.

Case Background

In this case, Mayank Jain, the proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog, filed a suit against M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. and others, including online platforms, alleging infringement of his trademark, “TIGER GOLD BRAND.” The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' trademark, “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND”, caused confusion among consumers and violated his rights as the registered proprietor of the mark.

The lawsuit was filed in the context of agricultural implements, where both parties were engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of similar products. The dispute raised significant questions about the distinctiveness of trademarks, the likelihood of consumer confusion, and the legal defenses available to businesses in trademark conflicts. 

Both the parties’ marks are below.

Procedural History

The procedural history of the case reveals the typical steps taken in trademark litigation. Initially, on May 6, 2025, both parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, but a settlement was not reached. The plaintiff subsequently filed an interim injunction application on August 28, 2025, seeking to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark. After concluding arguments on November 12, 2025, the court reserved its judgment, ultimately dismissing the interim injunction application on January 9, 2026.

Key Legal Issues

The dismissal of the interim injunction raised several pertinent legal issues:

1. Exclusive Rights and Distinctiveness: Did Mayank Jain possess exclusive rights over the terms “TIGER” and “BRAND”? The unique characteristics of trademarks heavily influence their legal protections. In this case, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff’s mark was distinctive enough to warrant protection.

2. Likelihood of Confusion: The court needed to assess whether the defendants' mark was identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark, which could lead to consumer confusion.

3. Prima Facie Case for Infringement: The plaintiff had to demonstrate a prima facie case for trademark infringement or passing off to justify the need for an interim injunction.

4. Liability of Online Platforms: Since the defendant list included online portals, the court also had to evaluate the applicability of safe harbor provisions under the Information Technology Act and whether these entities could be held liable for the alleged infringements.

Arguments in the Case

Plaintiff’s Contentions

The plaintiff argued that he was the registered proprietor of the trademark “TIGER GOLD BRAND” and had used it continuously since May 2010. Key points in his argument included:

- Distinctiveness: The plaintiff asserted that the defendants’ trademark was deceptively similar to his mark, highlighting that the only notable change was the substitution of “GOLD” with “PREMIUM.” The core elements, “TIGER” and the tiger device, remained intact, suggesting a deliberate attempt to leverage the plaintiff's goodwill.

- Honest Adoption: The plaintiff contended that the defendants had adopted the impugned mark dishonestly, evidenced by the significant delay in its adoption. Drawing on precedents, he argued that such delay should not preclude the granting of an injunction.

- Consumer Perception: The plaintiff emphasized the perspective of consumers, particularly farmers or villagers with imperfect recollection, indicating that confusion was likely. He relied on the principle that consumer understanding plays a crucial role in trademark disputes.

Defendant’s Contentions

On the other hand, the defendants, including M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd., presented several defenses:

- Honest Use: They argued that their adoption and use of “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” were made in good faith, invoking provisions that protect honest use of trademarks that may be similar to existing ones.

- Common to Trade: The defendants pointed out that the words “TIGER” and “BRAND” are colloquial and non-distinctive, suggesting that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over them. This argument draws upon the public domain nature of certain words within the trade context.

- Registration Limitations: They further argued that the registration of a device mark does not confer exclusivity over the individual words within it. The defendants sought to reinforce the idea that comparison should focus on the overall impression of the marks, rather than dissecting their individual components.

- Intermediary Defense: For the online portals involved, the defendants argued their intermediary status under the IT Act safeguarded them, as they did not engage in the actual transactions but merely provided platforms for sales, maintaining compliance with due diligence procedures.

 To know more about this, please follow the below link.

The Court's Decision

The application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC (I.A. No. 11309/2025) was dismissed. The Court held that the Plaintiff had no exclusive right over “TIGER” and “BRAND” as they were generic/common to trade and that the impugned mark did not infringe or pass off the Plaintiff’s mark due to absence of deceptive similarity. The High Court, in its ruling, emphasized several key principles:

1. Distinctive Character: The court reiterated that trademark protection is rooted in distinctiveness and the likelihood of consumer confusion. It scrutinized the marks in question to determine their overall impression rather than dissecting individual elements.

2. No Prima Facie Case Established: The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for either trademark infringement or passing off. The arguments presented by the defendants were not sufficiently countered, leading the court to dismiss the plaintiff's injunction application.

3. Intermediary Liability: The court supported the defendants’ position regarding online platforms, highlighting the safe harbor provisions that protect intermediaries from liability provided they demonstrate due diligence in removing infringing content.

Implications of the Ruling

The ruling holds significant implications for future trademark disputes. It underscores the importance of distinctiveness in trademarks and the necessity for businesses to build strong brand identities that can withstand scrutiny. The delineation between honest use and deceptive practices also emphasizes a critical point in trademark law, wherein businesses must navigate the fine line between competition and infringement.

The court’s consideration of consumer perception remains paramount, as businesses must be aware of how their branding might be perceived in the market. Moreover, the acknowledgment of the role of online platforms in trademark disputes highlights the evolving nature of commerce and the need for clarity in the legal responsibilities of intermediaries.

Conclusion

The above discussed case serves as a poignant reminder of the complexities involved in trademark litigation. It illustrates how businesses must strategically navigate the legal landscape to protect their brands while fostering healthy competition in the marketplace. As commerce continues to evolve, so too will the interpretations of trademark law, making it essential for business proprietors to stay informed and proactive in safeguarding their intellectual property rights.

This case encapsulates not just a legal battle between two businesses but also reflects broader themes in commercial law, consumer rights, and the relentless pursuit of brand identity in a competitive market. As we move forward, the principles established in this case will undoubtedly shape the future of trademark disputes, guiding businesses as they seek to defend their trademarks and maintain their market presence.