SIYARAM SILK MILLS LTD v. STANFORD SIYARAM FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED AND 2 ORS
Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: High Court Grants Interim Injunction Restraining Use of "Siyaram" Mark Due to Plaintiff's Prior Registration, Goodwill, and Defendant's Dishonest Adoption.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:1037
Decision Date: 13-01-2026
List of Laws
The Trade Marks Act, 1999; The Companies Act 1956; The Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976; Legal Metrology; Passing Off; Infringement
- Facts: M/s. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, the Plaintiff, filed a suit seeking to restrain M/s. Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited & Ors., the Defendants, from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark "Siyaram" by using the same or any deceptively similar mark in relation to textile goods and services. The Plaintiff claimed continuous use of the mark since 1977 and registration since 1984, asserting widespread reputation and goodwill. The Defendants, incorporated in 2006, were allegedly using the mark "Apricott - a Product of Stanford Siyaram Fashions Pvt. Ltd."
- Procedural Posture: This is a judgment on a Notice of Motion in a commercial intellectual property suit before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, where the Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendants from using the "Siyaram" trademark.
- Issue: Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case for interim relief to restrain the Defendants from infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark "Siyaram" and from passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff.
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the Plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case for the grant of interim relief, and the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), effectively restraining the Defendants.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the "Siyaram" trademark since 1986, and the Defendants have not challenged the validity of this registration. The Defendants' claim of prior use through their father's business was untenable due to lack of evidence of assignment or transfer of the trademark and goodwill. The Court found the Defendants' adoption of the mark to be dishonest, with full knowledge of the Plaintiff's prior use, reputation, and goodwill. The Court also noted that the Defendants' reliance on Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was misplaced, as it does not afford protection against an action for passing off. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the Plaintiff, as continued use by the Defendants would dilute the Plaintiff's well-established mark and cause irreparable injury. The Court emphasized that honesty of adoption is irrelevant once infringement or passing off is established.
🔒 For Members Only