Gujarat High Court Denies Injunction in ‘Shree Kshetrapal’ Trademark Dispute, Imposes Costs for Suppression of Material Facts
Introduction
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal seeking interim injunction in a trademark dispute concerning the mark “SHREE KSHETRAPAL,” holding that the appellant was not entitled to equitable relief due to suppression of material facts. The Court further imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the appellant for approaching the court with unclean hands. The judgment was delivered by Justice Niral R. Mehta in an appeal filed by Anil Gopalji Thacker against Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from competing use of the name “Kshetrapal” in the real estate sector. The appellant claimed exclusive rights over the registered trademark “SHREE KSHETRAPAL” and sought to restrain the respondent from using the name “Kshetrapal Construction.” The respondent, however, contended that both parties had previously been business partners and had jointly undertaken real estate projects using the “Kshetrapal” name by mutual understanding.
Procedural Background
The appellant had initially approached the trial court seeking interim injunction, which was rejected by order dated August 12, 2025, and an earlier ex-parte relief was vacated. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Gujarat High Court seeking reversal of the trial court’s decision and grant of interim protection.
Issues
1. Whether the appellant was entitled to interim injunction against the use of the trade name “Kshetrapal Construction.”
2. Whether suppression of material facts disentitles a party from equitable relief in trademark disputes.
3. Whether the appellant could claim exclusive rights over the word “Kshetrapal” forming part of a composite trademark.
Contentions of the Parties
The appellant contended that he was the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the mark “SHREE KSHETRAPAL” since 2015 and therefore had exclusive rights to restrain the respondent from using a deceptively similar name in the same line of business.
The respondent argued that the appellant had suppressed material facts relating to their prior partnership and joint business ventures, where both parties had used the name “Kshetrapal” for real estate projects. It was submitted that the appellant had misrepresented the factual position to claim exclusivity.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found that the appellant had failed to disclose material facts regarding the prior business relationship between the parties, including joint real estate projects undertaken under the “Kshetrapal” name. This suppression, according to the Court, amounted to approaching the court with unclean hands, disentitling the appellant from equitable relief.
On merits, the Court examined the nature of the trademark and applied the principle under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, holding that registration of a composite mark does not confer exclusive rights over individual elements of the mark. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court held that the appellant could not claim monopoly over the word “Kshetrapal.”
The Court further observed that “Kshetrapal” has religious connotations and refers to a deity, thereby lacking inherent distinctiveness and remaining part of the public domain. Additionally, the Court noted the nature of the real estate market, observing that purchasers undertake significant due diligence before transactions. Therefore, the likelihood of confusion due to similar trade names was minimal. The Court also took note of inconsistencies in the appellant’s representations, particularly the contradiction between claiming prior use in court while stating before the Registrar that the mark was “proposed to be used.”
Decision
The Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court’s refusal to grant interim injunction and dismissed the appeal. It further imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the appellant for suppression of material facts and misleading the court.
In this case the appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Harshit Tolia, with Advocate Pratik K Chaudhary. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Senior Advocate Kamal B. Trivedi, with Advocates Shivang A Thacker and AR Thacker.