Court Restrains Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai from Using Deceptively Similar Mark 'SCALP SAYY' to Prevent Passing off
In a significant ruling dated August 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to M/s. SAYY Partnership Firm, restraining the defendant, Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai, from using the mark 'SCALP SAYY' or any similar mark that could cause confusion or misrepresentation in the market. The court found that the defendant's use of 'SCALP SAYY' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's unregistered trademark 'SAYY', thereby constituting a passing off action.
Presiding over the case, Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized the plaintiff's prior use and adoption of the 'SAYY' mark, which had garnered substantial goodwill and reputation through extensive sales, promotions, and social media presence. The court noted that the plaintiff's products were well-recognized in the cosmetics and hair care market, thus warranting protection against any potential infringement or misrepresentation by the defendant.
The judgment highlighted that the plaintiff's trademark application was filed on May 21, 2025, and was subsequently accepted and published. The defendant, however, filed an application for the mark 'SCALP SAYY' on a "proposed to be used" basis only on May 14, 2026, indicating a later adoption of the mark. The court observed that the defendant's mark subsumed the plaintiff's mark 'SAYY' entirely, raising a likelihood of confusion among consumers given the similar nature of the goods and overlapping trade channels.
The court also took into consideration the plaintiff's substantial investments in advertising and the significant turnover achieved within a short span of time, reinforcing the strong association of the mark 'SAYY' with the plaintiff's products. The defendant was found to have not only adopted a similar mark but also imitated the trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff's products, which could mislead consumers into believing an association with the plaintiff.
The injunction requires the defendant to remove all references to the impugned mark from online platforms and offline mediums within two weeks. The court's decision underscores the protection of common law rights for unregistered trademarks in cases of passing off, affirming the plaintiff's superior rights as the prior user and adopter of the mark.
The next hearing is set for January 14, 2027, where further proceedings will continue to address the alleged trademark infringement and passing off actions.
Bottom Line :
Intellectual Property Rights - Passing off action - Prior adopter and user of an unregistered trademark entitled to protection - Deceptive similarity in rival marks and packaging causes likelihood of confusion and misrepresentation, leading to irreparable harm to the prior user's goodwill and reputation.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12-A, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Rule 22 of Delhi High Court IPD Rules, 2021, Section 151 CPC.
M/s. SAYY Partnership Firm v. Bhuva Ankitkumar Jaysukhbhai, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2967887
