Gujarat High Court Refuses Injunction Over Edible Oil Marks, Calls Out Delay And Judicial Verbosity

Gujarat High Court Refuses Injunction Over Edible Oil Marks, Calls Out Delay And Judicial Verbosity

Introduction

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Mangrol Oil Mill in a trademark dispute concerning the mark “GULAB” used for groundnut oil, refusing to interfere with a Commercial Court order that denied interim injunction against Vikas Oil Industries, which markets edible oil under the mark “ROSE”. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker upheld the November 30, 2024 order passed by the Commercial Court at Morbi.

Factual Background

Mangrol Oil Mill claimed prior use and registration of the mark “GULAB” since the 1980s in relation to groundnut oil. It alleged that Vikas Oil Industries’ use of the mark “ROSE” for identical goods was likely to cause confusion, contending that “GULAB” and “ROSE” convey the same meaning and are conceptually similar. The plaintiff relied on its long-standing use and reputation to assert infringement and passing off. However, it was noted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant’s use of the mark since at least 2008 and had even filed objections before the Trade Marks Registry at that time. Despite such awareness, the suit was instituted only in 2022.

Procedural Background

The Commercial Court at Morbi had rejected the plaintiff’s application for ad-interim injunction on grounds of delay, laches, and acquiescence. Aggrieved by the refusal of interim relief, Mangrol Oil Mill preferred an appeal before the Gujarat High Court.

Issues

1. Whether “GULAB” and “ROSE” were deceptively similar so as to warrant interim injunction.

2. Whether delay and acquiescence disentitled the plaintiff to ad-interim relief.

3. Whether the Commercial Court’s discretionary refusal of injunction warranted appellate interference.

4. Whether trial courts must adhere to principles of concise and coherent judgment writing.

Contentions of the Parties

Appellant: “GULAB” and “ROSE” are synonymous and convey identical meanings. Use of “ROSE” for identical goods is likely to cause confusion in the market. The plaintiff has prior registration and use dating back to the 1980s. The trial court erred in refusing interim protection.

Respondent: The marks are visually and phonetically distinct. The plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s use since 2008 but approached the Court only in 2022. Delay, laches, and acquiescence disentitled the plaintiff from interim relief.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court declined to interfere with the Commercial Court’s exercise of discretion. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Bench held that distinct words lacking visual and phonetic similarity cannot be artificially dissected to establish deceptive similarity.

The Court stated that, “Applying the Anti-dissection rule, distinct words having no similar visual and phonetic, the dominant feature of two device marks, being typically the word ‘GULAB’ and ‘ROSE’ and the other pictorial representation of flower, namely ‘Gulab’ or ‘Rose’ and ‘Groundnuts in shells’, do not carry any inherent distinctiveness which can be associated with the product to create a consumer base/association so as to consider them uniquely associated with the plaintiffs' goods in the minds of the public.” The Bench reiterated that generic or descriptive elements cannot be monopolised unless they acquire distinctiveness through long and exclusive use.

On delay, the Court found that the plaintiff’s knowledge of the defendant’s use since 2008, coupled with institution of suit only in 2022, militated against grant of interim injunction.

The Court further issued a pointed caution regarding judicial writing. It observed that superfluous deliberations undermine credibility and burden appellate courts. Emphasising clarity and brevity, it underscored the “3-Cs” of judgment writing:

• Clarity
• Coherence
• Conciseness

The Court directed that a copy of the trial court’s judgment be sent to the Judicial Academy for academic purposes.

Decision

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commercial Court’s refusal to grant interim injunction. It also cautioned trial courts against unnecessary verbosity in judgments, emphasising disciplined and structured adjudication.

In this case the appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Shalin Mehta, with Advocates Y J Jasani and Pratik Y Jasani. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Rushvi N Shah, Zahid K Shaikh, Jawad Z Shaikh and Arbaz A Saiyed, Advocates.