Court Denies Interim Relief to Ashiana Ispat, Upholds Kamdhenu Limited's Trademark Rights
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued a judgment in the trademark dispute case between Ashiana Ispat Limited and Kamdhenu Limited. The case revolved around the use of the trademark "AL KAMDHENU GOLD" by Ashiana Ispat and its alleged infringement of Kamdhenu Limited's registered trademarks "KAMDHENU," "KAMDHENU GOLD," and "KAMDHENU GOLD TMT."
The bench, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, delivered the judgment on July 1, 2026, in the appeal filed by Ashiana Ispat Limited against the interlocutory orders of the Single Judge. The Single Judge had denied interim relief to Ashiana Ispat while granting an injunction in favor of Kamdhenu Limited, restraining Ashiana Ispat from using the mark "AL KAMDHENU GOLD."
The case stems from a series of agreements between the two parties dating back to 2002, which allowed Ashiana Ispat to use the mark "AL KAMDHENU GOLD," contingent upon its registration. Despite the agreement, Ashiana Ispat's trademark application was abandoned in 2008, leading to a loss of proprietary rights.
The court noted that Kamdhenu Limited is the registered proprietor of the trademarks "KAMDHENU," "KAMDHENU GOLD," and "KAMDHENU GOLD TMT," and Ashiana Ispat's use of "AL KAMDHENU GOLD" was likely to cause confusion and association with Kamdhenu's marks. The judgment emphasized that Ashiana Ispat failed to demonstrate goodwill or reputation for the mark "AL KAMDHENU GOLD" through use or advertisement between 2002-2024.
The court also addressed the issue of novation, finding that the 2021 Agreement between the parties constituted a novation of the 2002 Agreement, which altered the terms and products involved, thereby affecting Ashiana Ispat's claim to the trademark.
In its ruling, the court restrained Kamdhenu Limited from using the mark "AL KAMDHENU GOLD" during the pendency of the suits, considering Kamdhenu's bad faith registration of the mark, despite its acknowledgment of Ashiana Ispat's earlier adoption of the same.
The judgment underscores the importance of securing statutory rights and demonstrating consistent use to claim proprietary rights in a trademark. It also reiterates the principles from Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. regarding appellate court interference in discretionary orders of lower courts.
The court's decision has significant implications for both parties, as it preserves Kamdhenu's registered trademark rights while restraining it from using the contested mark. The case is a reminder of the complexities involved in trademark law and the necessity of adhering to agreements and statutory requirements.
Bottom line:-
Trademark Law - The rights under a trademark agreement are contingent on compliance with the agreement's terms, including registration and use of the trademark. Failure to secure statutory rights or demonstrate consistent use can result in forfeiture of claims to proprietary rights in the trademark.
Statutory provision(s): Trademarks Act, 1999, Section 48(2), Section 11(4), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2
Ashiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2934097
