This is an interim order, not a final decision on infringement. The Court's findings on jurisdiction, similarity and dishonest adoption are prima facie and confined to this application; the suit and the defendants' applications for return and rejection of the plaint remain to be decided.
- Case
- Jindal Composite Tubes Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Baldev Krishan & Anr.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:10006
- Bench
- Tejas Karia
- Judgment by
- Tejas Karia
- Case numbers
- CS(COMM) 622/2026
- Outcome
- Interim order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC allowing I.A. 15409/2026 and restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit. Findings are prima facie only; the suit and the defendants' Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 applications remain pending.
Interim injunction granted over GROJINDAL
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Punjab pipes manufacturer from using the mark GROJINDAL or GRO JINDAL, or any mark deceptively similar to the registered JINDAL marks, until the trade mark suit against it is decided.
Justice Tejas Karia allowed the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on 6 November 2026, holding that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement, that the balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that they would suffer irreparable injury if no injunction were granted.
The restraint covers the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, export, advertising and marketing of MLC, PVC, UPVC, CPVC, CPVC rigid, HDPE, MDPE, PE and PPR-C pipes and fittings, and allied and cognate goods, under the impugned mark.
Two pipes businesses and one surname
Plaintiff No. 1, Jindal Composite Tubes Pvt Ltd, incorporated on 10 March 2003 with its registered office at Moti Nagar, New Delhi, manufactures non-metallic pipes and fittings — MLC, PVC, UPVC, CPVC, HDPE, MDPE, PE and PPR-C — under the JINDAL family of marks, and has authorised its sister concern, plaintiff No. 2, to use those marks since 2005.
Defendant No. 1, Baldev Krishan, sole proprietor of M/s Goyal Polymers of Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab, makes plastic pipes, flexible hose pipes and fittings under the impugned mark; defendant No. 2 is a distributor in Jalandhar. The plaintiffs say they found the impugned goods in a Jalandhar market survey in the last week of February 2026, obtained an invoice dated 27 February 2026 from defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2, and issued a legal notice on 12 March 2026. Defendant No. 1 replied on 23 March 2026, denying infringement and claiming honest adoption and use since 26 October 2020.
Registered marks used since 2001
The plaintiffs confined the suit to infringement of their registered marks and did not press passing off. Their case began in 2001, when plaintiff No. 1's predecessor, Sudha Agarwal, trading as Chandi Poly Tubes, adopted the word mark JINDAL for PVC pipes, bends and joints, filing Application No. 1018169 with a user claim from 1 April 2001. In 2003, promoter Arvind Jindal adopted the device mark — JINDAL in white on a green background — for HDPE, MDPE and PE pipes under Application No. 1165594, with a user claim from 6 January 2003; both marks and their goodwill were later assigned to plaintiff No. 1.
Plaintiff No. 1 holds Registration No. 1018169 in Class 17 for PVC pipes, bends and joints for sale in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, renewed to 19 June 2031, and Registration No. 1165594 in Class 17 for HDPE, MDPE and PE pipes, limited to the colour green, renewed to 10 January 2033. Rectification petitions filed by a third party in November 2022 are pending. Consolidated audited sales under the marks grew from about Rs 76.57 lakh in 2003-04 to about Rs 45.27 crore in 2024-25.
On similarity, the plaintiffs submitted that defendant No. 1 had adopted the whole of the registered mark JINDAL with only the prefix GRO added, that GRO is generic and descriptive, and that the marks are visually, structurally and phonetically similar for identical goods sold to the same consumers through the same channels, satisfying the triple identity test. The mark as used displays JINDAL in large letters within an oval, with GRO in smaller letters above it.
Jurisdiction, own name, delay and balance of convenience
Defendant No. 1 objected first to territorial jurisdiction: the entire cause of action arose in Punjab — the invoice ran from Sunam to Jalandhar, the survey was in Jalandhar, and both defendants are in Punjab — and the plaintiffs themselves carry on business in Punjab, pointing to premises at Zirakpur, an IndiaMART listing at Jalandhar, and an arrangement with M/s Jindal Tubes. Section 134(2), it argued, did not sustain a suit at the plaintiffs' distant registered office in Delhi.
It also said the plaintiffs had not disclosed the territorial limitation in Registration No. 1018169, that no infringement of that registration could lie within Delhi, and that JINDAL is a common surname. The use of GROJINDAL was honest, it said: GRO came from Goyal, and JINDAL was the maternal family surname of its proprietor, so Section 35 protected the adoption. The composite mark, with its stylised G device, conveyed a different commercial impression from the plaintiffs' green oval device.
On delay, it pointed out that its trade mark application had been public since 2020 while the plaintiffs pleaded discovery only in late February 2026. An injunction would halt a business running since 2020, it said, while the plaintiffs had quantified their own damages at Rs 2,00,05,000, showing the loss was compensable in money. In the alternative, it offered to use GROJINDAL only as a single word with the G device and a “Manufactured by: M/s Goyal Polymers, Sunam (Punjab)” legend, and to maintain accounts pending trial.
Prima facie jurisdiction, similarity and dishonest adoption
The Court dealt first with jurisdiction, since defendant No. 1 had also filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 for return of the plaint and Order VII Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint. Under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, which lets a plaintiff sue where it actually and voluntarily carries on business, the plaintiffs' registered office at Moti Nagar, New Delhi, prima facie sustained jurisdiction. The Zirakpur assertion rested only on information received; sale through an independent distributor was not prima facie carrying on business through a subordinate office, and an IndiaMART listing did not establish one at Jalandhar. The finding was confined to this application.
The registrations are valid and subsisting, prima facie evidence of validity under Section 31(1), and the pending rectification proceedings did not extinguish them. The territorial limitation in Registration No. 1018169 had been disclosed in the plaint, and the impugned goods are made at Sunam and sold at Jalandhar, both in Punjab and within that registration's territory; Registration No. 1165594 carries no territorial limitation. Comparing the marks as wholes, JINDAL is the dominant feature of the impugned mark, visually and phonetically, and the prefix GRO does not alter the overall commercial impression. Applying Section 29(9) and Renaissance Hotel Holdings, the Court found a likelihood of confusion and a prima facie case of infringement under Sections 29(2)(b) and 29(9).
The Section 35 defence failed at this stage: the proprietor is Baldev Krishan, son of Satpal Goyal, trading as Goyal Polymers, and while GRO might come from Goyal, no explanation was offered for JINDAL, which is neither the proprietor's name nor that of his place of business or a predecessor in business; the maternal-surname contention had not been taken in the reply and was unsupported. The plaintiffs' use since 2001, against the defendants' applications of 2020, meant the adoption could not prima facie be called honest. On delay, an application filed on a “proposed to be used” basis did not show the plaintiffs knew of use in the market.
On balance of convenience, the plaintiffs' long use and sales of about Rs 45.27 crore in 2024-25 weighed in their favour, defendant No. 1 placed no material on the extent of its business, and it remained free to trade under another mark. Injury to goodwill could not be adequately compensated in damages, and the damages figure was for court fees and jurisdiction. The alternative proposal was rejected because use of GROJINDAL itself had been found prima facie to infringe.
Restraint for the duration of the suit
The Court allowed the application and restrained the defendants, their proprietors, partners or directors, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing or in any manner using, directly or indirectly, the impugned mark GROJINDAL, GRO JINDAL or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the registered marks, in relation to the pipes and fittings concerned or any allied and cognate goods, during the pendency of the suit.
The Court made clear that its observations are confined to the adjudication of this application and are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit or of the other pending applications.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: interim relief is a prima facie exercise
This judgment is a worked example of the interim injunction test: prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, applied in that order. Notice how the Court treats each element as a threshold question about the trial, not as a final finding — the word prima facie appears throughout, and paragraph 27 confines every observation to this application.
The jurisdiction discussion shows why Section 134(2) matters in trade mark litigation: a plaintiff can sue where it carries on business, but only if that is real and proved. A distributor is not a subordinate office, and an online marketplace listing is not a place of business.
The similarity analysis turns on the dominant-feature test. A defendant cannot escape infringement by adding a prefix to a registered mark when the registered word remains the feature consumers will remember, especially where the goods are identical and the trade channels are the same.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that it had prima facie territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
- Why did the addition of the prefix GRO not save the impugned mark from a prima facie finding of infringement?
- Why did the Court reject the defendants' alternative offer to use GROJINDAL as a single word with a manufacturer legend?
