Delhi High Court dismisses Sona BLW appeal restricting Sona Mandhira from using logo
17 April, 2023 | Anupam Shrivastav
Sona BLW had claimed that Sona Mandhira deliberately and illegally adopted a completely identical trade name “SONA” as part of its corporate name.
The Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, comprising of Justice V.K Rao and A.K Mendiratta vide judgment dated 17.04.2023, were pleased to dismiss the appeal and pending applications filed by Sona Mandhira Pvt Ltd & Ms. Mandira Koirala against the Impugned Judgment dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Single Judge granting an interim injunction restraining Sona Mandhira from using Sona BLW’s trademark/trade name/logo “SONA” in any manner or any other trademark/trade name/logo containing ‘SONA’.
Sona BLW had claimed that Sona Mandhira deliberately and illegally adopted a completely identical trade name “SONA” as part of its corporate name, despite being fully aware of Sona BLW and its predecessors uninterrupted, long, and continuous usage of the said trademark. The corporate name of Sona Mandhira was only changed recently on 22.06.2020 in the middle of the pandemic. Sona Mandhira contended that the present lis is essentially a family dispute between Mr. Sunjay Kapur i.e. Chairman of the Sona BLW, Ms. Mandira Koirala, sister of Mr. Sunjay Kapur and Ms. Rani Kapur, mother of Mr. Sunjay Kapur and that the Ld. Single Judge had erred in granting the injunction in favour of Sona BLW.
The Hon’ble Division Bench has expressed that as there being no perversity, arbitrariness or illegality in the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order warrants no interference. The Hon’ble Division Bench was also pleased to dismiss the application filed by Sona Mandhira thereby seeking permission to sell the existing stock of their inventory in the market. While dismissing the aforesaid application the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that grave prejudice would be caused to SONA BLW if the same was allowed in face of the fact that the judgment of the Ld. Single Judge as well as the judgment in the appeal were in their favour. The Hon’ble Division Bench was of the view that the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion judiciously, in concluding that in the facts of the case, equities lie in favour of the respondents, and that the respondents have been able to make out a good prima facie case for the grant of interim protection, and in granting the ad-interim injunction in their favour and against the appellants.
Sona BLW was represented by Senior Advocates Mr. Akhil Sibal and Mr. Rajshekhar Rao briefed by the team of Karanjawala & Company led by Ms. Meghna Mishra – Partner, Mr. Ankit Rajgarhia – Principal Associate, Mr. Tarun Sharma- Senior Associate, Mr. Karanveer Kathuria and Mr. Meeran Maqbool – Associates.
Sona Mandhira was represented by Senior Advocates Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Mrs. Geeta Luthra, Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Dayan Krishnan, briefed by the team of Agarwal Law Associates.