When a trader bolts a prefix onto someone else’s registered mark, does the addition rescue him? In Jindal Composite Tubes Pvt Ltd v. Baldev Krishan (CS(COMM) 622/2026, decided 6 November 2026), Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held it does not: the mark GROJINDAL, used for the very pipes for which JINDAL stands registered, wholly incorporates the plaintiffs’ mark, and the word JINDAL remains its dominant and essential feature, visually and phonetically. An interim injunction followed.
The parties and the marks
The plaintiffs — Jindal Composite Tubes Pvt Ltd, a Delhi company incorporated in 2003, and a sister concern — manufacture non-metallic pipes under the JINDAL family of marks, holding a word mark registration (No. 1018169, Class 17, PVC pipes, territorially limited to Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) and a device mark (No. 1165594, Class 17, HDPE/MDPE/PE pipes, unrestricted). Defendant No. 1, sole proprietor of M/s Goyal Polymers of Sunam, Punjab, sells identical goods under GROJINDAL / GRO JINDAL, claiming use since 26 October 2020; Defendant No. 2 is a Jalandhar distributor. The plaintiffs say they discovered the mark in February 2026, issued notice on 12 March 2026 and sued, seeking an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a commercial suit.
The defences, and why they failed
| Defence raised | The court’s prima facie answer |
|---|---|
| No territorial jurisdiction: the cause of action lies in Punjab, and the plaintiffs trade there | Section 134(2) permits suit where the registered proprietor carries on business; a principal-to-principal distributor is not the plaintiff’s subordinate office. “This Court is prima facie of the view that it has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit” (para 12). |
| Honest concurrent use: “GRO” from Goyal, JINDAL a common surname, Section 35 protects it | Section 35 shields a person’s own name or business name. JINDAL is neither; “the adoption of the Impugned Mark by Defendant No. 1 cannot, prima facie, be said to be honest or bona fide” (para 21). |
| Pending rectifications against the registrations defeat the claim | Section 31(1) confers prima facie validity on registration; pendency of rectification does not dilute it at this stage (para 13). |
| Suppression of the word mark’s territorial limitation | Rejected — the plaint itself disclosed the limitation (para 14). |
| Damages are quantifiable, so no irreparable harm | Injury to goodwill from confusingly similar use on identical goods is not adequately compensable in money; the balance of convenience favoured the registered proprietor (paras 22–24). |
The core of the reasoning
Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Renaissance Hotel Holdings v. B. Vijaya Sai ((2022) 5 SCC 1), the court found that GROJINDAL wholly incorporates the registered mark and that “the word ‘JINDAL’ is the dominant and essential feature of the Impugned Mark, both visually and phonetically” (para 16). With identity of goods — pipes — and identity of trade channels, the triple-identity structure of the infringement analysis under Section 29(2)(b) was prima facie complete. The defendant’s offer of a modified style was rejected for a simple reason: if the use itself infringes, cosmetic adjustments do not cure it. All findings were expressly recorded as prima facie (para 27), and the interim injunction restrains use of GROJINDAL / GRO JINDAL or any deceptively similar mark for pipes and fittings — MLC, PVC, UPVC, CPVC, HDPE, MDPE, PE and PPR-C — pending suit.
Lessons for brand owners and traders
Wholesale incorporation of a registered word mark is the riskiest form of adoption; prefixes and suffixes rarely displace the registered element as the dominant feature when goods and channels are identical.
The Section 35 own-name defence is narrow and literal: it protects the trader’s actual name or business name, not a surname the trader finds commercially attractive.
Pending rectification is not a shield at the interlocutory stage — a defendant banking on invalidity must still face Section 31(1)’s presumption until the register is actually altered.
For plaintiffs, pleading hygiene pays: the disclosure of the word mark’s territorial limitation in the plaint defused the suppression attack entirely.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the "dominant feature" test?
Composite marks are compared as wholes, but the comparison recognises that one element may dominate the commercial impression. Where the defendant’s mark wholly incorporates the registered mark and that element dominates visually and phonetically — as JINDAL was held to do within GROJINDAL — a likelihood of confusion is prima facie made out for identical goods sold through the same channels.
Why did the own-name defence under Section 35 fail?
Section 35 protects the bona fide use by a person of his own name or that of his place of business. The sole proprietor behind GROJINDAL was not named Jindal — the business was M/s Goyal Polymers, with "GRO" said to derive from "Goyal". Since JINDAL was neither the proprietor’s name nor his business name, the court held the adoption could not, prima facie, be called honest or bona fide.
Did the pending rectification petitions matter?
No. Third-party rectification petitions against the plaintiffs’ registrations were pending, but Section 31(1) gives a registration prima facie validity, and the court held the pendency of rectifications did not dilute that presumption at the interlocutory stage.
How was territorial jurisdiction in Delhi sustained?
Under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, a registered proprietor may sue where it carries on business — here, Delhi. The defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs effectively did business in Punjab through a distributor was rejected: a principal-to-principal distributor is not a subordinate office of the plaintiff, and the court held prima facie that it had jurisdiction.