Franchisee Ordered to Cease Using "Geetanjali" Trademark Post-Termination of Agreement
In a significant judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, Geetanjali Salon Private Limited secured an interim injunction against Ms. Amita Dubey and other defendants for unauthorized use of the "Geetanjali" trademarks following the termination of their franchise agreement. The decision, pronounced by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, emphasized the plaintiff's prima facie case for injunction due to infringement and passing off of its renowned trademarks.
The dispute arose after Geetanjali Salon terminated the franchise agreement with the defendants for failing to pay the Continuing Franchise Fee (CFF) and other charges, amounting to Rs. 10,32,500/-. Despite a lawyer's notice dated April 21, 2026, demanding cessation of trademark usage, the defendants continued operating under the "Geetanjali Studio" brand in Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
The court, upon examining the plaint and accompanying documents, observed that the defendants were leveraging Geetanjali's goodwill and reputation to generate revenue, thus misleading consumers into believing their services were endorsed by the plaintiff. Justice Bhambhani noted the likelihood of consumer deception due to identical trade and business practices between the parties.
Highlighting the registered status and long-standing use of the "Geetanjali" trademarks, the court inferred prima facie infringement by the defendants. Consequently, the court granted an interim restraint order, prohibiting the defendants from using the "Geetanjali" trademarks or any deceptively similar marks until the next hearing.
The court underscored the balance of convenience favoring the plaintiff and the potential for irreparable harm to its reputation if the injunction were not granted. The plaintiff's proactive approach in protecting its intellectual property rights was acknowledged, with several prior court orders cited as precedent.
The case is scheduled for further proceedings on September 29, 2026, before the learned Joint Registrar, where completion of pleadings in the application will occur. The defendants are required to file their written statement within 30 days of receiving the summons, with the plaintiff permitted to file a replication thereafter.
This judgment reinforces the stringent protection offered to trademark holders under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and serves as a cautionary tale for franchisees about adhering to contractual agreements and intellectual property laws.
Bottom line:-
Intellectual Property - Prima facie case for injunction - A franchisee continuing to use the franchisor's trademarks post termination of the franchise agreement amounts to trademark infringement and passing off - Court grants interim relief to restrain such activities.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 28, 29, 135; Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC; Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC; Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 151 of CPC.
Geetanjali Salon Private Limited v. Ms. Amita Dubey, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2938714
