The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim protection to a long-running agricultural equipment brand in a trademark dispute involving the use of the word “Tiger.” The court held that common trade expressions cannot be monopolised and found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks.
The ruling came in a suit filed by Mayank Jain, proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog, against Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. and others, seeking an immediate restraint on the use of the mark “Tiger Premium Brand.”
Background of the Case
The plaintiff claimed ownership of the device mark “Tiger Gold Brand”, used since 2010 for agricultural implements such as harrows and disc harrows. According to the suit, the brand had built goodwill among farmers over more than a decade and was formally registered in 2023.
In late 2024, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants began selling identical products under the mark “Tiger Premium Brand,” supported by a similar tiger device. This, the plaintiff argued, amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.
An application for interim injunction was moved under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking the court to immediately stop the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
What the Plaintiff Argued
Counsel for the plaintiff told the court that the defendants had copied the “essential features” of the mark, including the word “Tiger,” the word “Brand,” and the tiger device itself.
Read also:- Dhurandhar Controversy Reaches Gujarat High Court, Case Ends After Objected Word Is Muted
Replacing “Gold” with “Premium,” it was argued, was a cosmetic change meant to confuse buyers. Emphasis was placed on the fact that farmers and rural buyers rely on memory and overall impression rather than fine visual details.
“The adoption of the impugned mark is dishonest and intended to ride on the goodwill built by the plaintiff over years,” the plaintiff’s counsel submitted.
Defence Stand: ‘Tiger’ Is Common to Trade
The defendants strongly opposed the injunction. They argued that “Tiger” and “Brand” are generic expressions widely used across India for different goods, including agricultural equipment.
Relying on trademark law principles, the defence contended that registration of a device mark does not grant exclusive rights over individual words within it. The impugned mark, they said, must be seen as a whole and was visually and structurally different from the plaintiff’s mark.
The defendants also pointed out that the plaintiff did not hold a standalone word mark registration for “Tiger.”
Court’s Observations
Justice Tejas Karia, after examining both marks side by side, agreed with the defence on key points.
The court observed that:
“The words ‘Tiger’ and ‘Brand’ are generic in nature, common to the trade, and incapable of exclusive ownership.”
The judge noted that widespread use of the word “Tiger” across industries meant it had become publici juris available for everyone to use. The plaintiff had also failed to show that the word had acquired a secondary meaning uniquely associated with its products.
Read also:- Orissa High Court Upholds Tribunal Order on Compassionate Appointment of Adopted Son in Railway Case
On the issue of similarity, the court applied the anti-dissection rule, holding that trademarks must be compared as a whole and not by breaking them into parts.
“When viewed as a whole, the impugned mark is visually distinct and does not create a likelihood of confusion among consumers,” the court said.
The court also rejected the argument that farmers, as consumers, would automatically be misled, stating that even from the perspective of an average buyer, the rival marks were distinguishable.
No Case for Passing Off or Injunction
The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish three crucial elements at the interim stage: exclusive rights, deceptive similarity, and likelihood of confusion.
Read also:- Education Can’t Cancel a Wife’s Right to Maintenance: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Family Court Order
It further held that there was no prima facie evidence of misrepresentation or damage, which are essential to sustain a passing-off claim.
“No case is made out for grant of interim injunction,” the court concluded.
Decision
Dismissing the interim application, the Delhi High Court ruled that the defendants’ use of “Tiger Premium Brand” does not infringe or pass off the plaintiff’s “Tiger Gold Brand.”
The court refused to restrain the defendants from continuing the use of the impugned mark, bringing the interim proceedings to an end
Case Title: Mayank Jain (Proprietor, Mahaveer Udyog) v. M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Others
Case Number: CS (COMM) 412/2025
Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026
