"SACHAMOTI" Mark & Copyright Label Registered In His Favour: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Rajkumar Sabu In Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an Appeal filed by Sabu Trade Private Limited against Rajkumar Sabu in a trademark dispute over ‘SACHAMOTI’ mark related to Sabudana (Sago).

The said Appeal was filed against the Common Order of the Single Judge, which granted interim injunction in favour of Rajkumar and against the aforesaid company.

A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar observed, “The fact is that the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ and the copyright in the label are registered in favour of the respondent. The same shall enure to the benefit of the respondent insofar as the rights flowing under Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, is concerned, at least as of now.”

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak appeared on behalf of the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Chander Lall appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Appellant-Sabu Trade Private Limited (STPL) was incorporated in 1993. The Respondent-Rajkumar Sabu was the son of (Late) Chandrakanta Sabu. The dispute in this case arose out of the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ and label. The Respondent had filed a suit before the Delhi High Court’s Single Judge against the Appellants from which an Order emerged. In that Order, the Respondent had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the Appellants were restrained from using the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ and label.

Thereafter, STPL filed a suit before the Principal District Judge, which was dismissed. An Appeal was preferred before the Madras High Court and the said Order was set aside. The Court held that STPL had made out a prima facie case that they are prior users of the trade mark ‘SACHAMOTI’. Being aggrieved, the Respondent filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) and on the other hand, the STPL filed a Transfer Petition. The Supreme Court transferred both suits to the Delhi High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “Though, the above documents filed by both the parties, show the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in their favour, most of the documents do not pertain to the years prior to 1993/1997. There are documents prior to 1993/97, which do not depict the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’. However, invoices and bills issued by Tarun Trading Co. dated 03.02.1983 and 05.12.1989 respectively to the STC/respondent herein refers to ‘SACHAMOTI’.”

The Court noted that the Respondent has shown use of the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’, at least from 1983, as rightly recorded by the Single Judge.

The Appellants had relied upon the speech given by Raj Kumar Sabu depicting the grant of AGMARK certificate under ‘SACHAMOTI’ brand in favour of the Appellant company and had also filed the AGMARK certificate issued in their favour. In this regard, the Court observed, “The case of the appellants is that even if the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ is registered in Class 30 in favour of the respondent, being a prior user, the appellants are within their rights to use the same. This stand of the appellants has to be proved by the appellants, more so, in view of what has been stated by the respondent, which we have noted in paragraph 94 above.”

The Court further noted that the case of the Respondent is that the proprietorship concern Shiv Trading Company (STC) was established in the year 1972 by Chandrakanta Sabu and it is also their case that the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ and ‘CHAKRA’ were adopted by Chandrakanta Sabu for food and grocery and sabudana in the year 1982.

“Chandrakanta Sabu gave ‘CHAKRA’ to the appellant no. 2 and ‘SACHAMOTI’ to the respondent. Though a reliance has been placed by the respondent on the affidavit of Chandrakanta Sabu, the same is contested by the appellants by stating it is forged. In any case, the veracity of the documents relied upon by the parties needs to be decided and the same would be possible only during the trial”, it added.

The Court, therefore refused to interfere with the impugned Order.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the Order in favour of the Respondent.

Cause Title- Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9025-DB)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, Advocates Lalltaksh Joshi, Luv Virmani, and Ananya Sanjiv Saraogi.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Chander Lall, Advocates Divyakant Lahoti, Vindhya Mehra, Samridhi Bhatt, and Ananya Mohan.

Click here to read/download the Judgment