Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation
Respondent / Defendant
Modern Dairies Ltd. and another
Dispute Summary
The Punjab-Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation against an order of the Commercial Court, Karnal, which had rejected the defendant's application to reject the plaint in a trademark infringement suit. The court held that the plaint discloses a triable cause of action and the suit must proceed to trial. The defendant had argued that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action as the registered trademark 'Mehak Pyaar Ki Swaad Khushiyo Ka' was not used in its entirety by the plaintiff.
Outcome / Ruling
defendant_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 2 , Cited by 0 ] Punjab-Haryana High Court Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing ... vs Modern Dairies Ltd. And Anr on 15 July, 2026 CR-2708-2023 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2708-2023 (O&M) Gujarat Coopera ve Milk Marke ng Federa on ...Pe oner Versus Modern Dairies Ltd. and another ...Respondents Reserved on: 14.07.2026 Pronounced on: 15.07.2026 Pronounced fully/opera2ve part: Fully CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by: Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate and Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the pe oner. Ms. Savita Bhandari, Advocate for the respondents. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The defendants have invoked the supervisory jurisdic on of this Court under Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on of India assailing the order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commercial Court, Karnal, whereby their applica on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejec on of the plaint in a commercial suit bearing No. CS-01-2021 'Modern Dairies Ltd. vs Gujarat Co-opera ve Milk Marke ng Federa on Ltd. & Another' has been dismissed. 2. The Commercial Court rejected each of the grounds urged by the defendant. Before this Court, however, learned counsel for the pe oners has confined the challenge only to one ground, namely, that the plaint does not disclose any cause of ac on. 3. Learned counsel for the pe oners submits that the registered trade mark of the plain ff is "Mehak Pyaar Ki Swaad Khushiyo Ka", whereas YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2708-2023 (O&M) [2] the adver sement (Annexure P-3) issued by the pe oners uses the expression "Apne Pariwar ko Dijiye Khushiyo ka Swaad". It is argued that in view of Sec on 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 , registra on confers exclusive rights only in respect of the trade mark taken as a whole and not in respect of any part thereof. Since the pe oner has admi?edly not used the registered trade mark in its en rety, no cause of ac on for infringement is disclosed in the plaint. Consequently, the plaint deserved rejec on under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC . 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- plain ff submits that the pe oners have selec vely relied upon only one limb of the plaint. Invi ng a?en on to paragraph 5 of the plaint, it is contended that apart from infringement of the registered trade mark, the plain ffs have specifically pleaded that they conceived, adopted and con nuously used the dis nc ve tagline "Swaad Khushiyo Ka" since the year 2011 and that the defendants have dishonestly adopted a decep vely similar expression amoun ng to passing off and infringement of their proprietary rights acquired by prior user. It is argued that whether such plea ul mately succeeds is a ma?er of evidence and cannot be examined while deciding an applica on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC . 5. Having heard learned counsel for the par es, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The scope of enquiry under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC is well se?led. While considering whether a plaint discloses a cause of ac on, the Court is required to confine itself only to the averments contained in the plaint and the documents relied upon therein. The correctness, truthfulness or ul mate sustainability of those averments is wholly irrelevant at that stage. If on a meaningful reading of the plaint, a bundle of facts giving rise to a right to sue is disclosed, rejec on of the plaint is impermissible. It is YOGESH MEHTA equally well se?led that the plaint has to be read as a whole and not by 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2708-2023 (O&M) [3] dissec ng isolated pleadings or reliefs. The Court cannot embark upon an adjudica on of the merits of the controversy or examine the probable defence of the defendant while exercising jurisdic on under Order VII Rule 11 CPC . 7. A perusal of the plaint shows that the plain ffs have not rested their claim exclusively on alleged infringement of the registered trade mark. They have also specifically pleaded that the expression "Swaad Khushiyo Ka" was independently conceived and adopted by them as a dis nc ve tagline, that it has acquired goodwill and dis nc veness by prior and con nuous use, and that the defendants have adopted a decep vely similar expression with an inten on to ride upon such reputa on. The relief clause also seeks injunc on in this regard. 8. It is trite that an ac on for passing off is a common law remedy founded upon prior user and goodwill and is independent of statutory registra on. Even an unregistered mark, slogan or tagline may, if it has acquired dis nc veness, furnish a valid founda on for an ac on in passing off. Whether the plain ffs are able to establish prior adop on, goodwill, reputa on, decep ve similarity or likelihood of confusion are all ma?ers requiring evidence and cannot be prejudged at the threshold. 9. The conten on founded upon Sec on 17 of the Trade Marks Act also does not persuade this Court to reject the plaint. Whether Sec on 17 defeats the plain ffs' claim for infringement, whether the impugned expression cons tutes use of a part of the registered mark, and whether such use a?racts the statutory protec on or otherwise are all issues touching the merits of the controversy. Those ques ons may cons tute a substan al defence available to the defendant, but they cannot be converted into a ground for holding that the plaint itself discloses no cause of ac on. At this stage, the Court is not concerned with the probable YOGESH MEHTA success or failure of the suit. 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2708-2023 (O&M) [4] 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaint cannot be rejected merely because the Court is of the opinion that the plain ff may ul mately fail in establishing the claim. So long as the plaint discloses a triable cause of ac on, the suit must proceed to trial. The dis nc on between 'absence of a cause of ac on' and 'failure to prove a cause of ac on' is necessary to be kept in mind. The former alone a?racts Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC . 11. In the present case, the plaint contains clear factual asser ons regarding prior user, decep ve similarity and infringement of its trademark. These averments, if assumed to be correct for the limited purpose of Order VII Rule 11 CPC , unques onably disclose a cause of ac on requiring adjudica on aJer par es lead evidence. Whether the plain ffs ul mately succeed or whether the defence based upon Sec on 17 of the Trade Marks Act is sustainable, are ma?ers to be determined during trial. 12. The Commercial Court has, therefore, rightly declined to reject the plaint. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdic onal error nor discloses any perversity warran ng interference under Ar cle 227 of the Cons tu on of India. 13. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present revision pe on, the same is dismissed. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit, which shall be decided independently on the basis of the evidence led by the par es. 15.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Uploaded on: 15.07.2026 YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.15 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Cancel
Update Case