‘Jain Shikanji’ trademark: Delhi HC rejects company’s plea against trial court interim order

Dismissing the appeal the High Court in its March 1 verdict held, “Discernment of an appeal at the appellate stage in view of the settled position of law…of the CPC leads us to conclude that the appellant has been unable to make out a case for interference by this Court. Hence, taking into consideration the overall factual and legal aspects involved herein and the overall conduct of appellant, this court finds no merit in the present appeal”.

Satish Kumar Jain claimed that his father the late Parmatma Sharan Jain opened a Shikanji shop under the name and style of Jain Shikanji on Delhi-Meerut Road, Modinagar, more than five decades ago and that the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’ became distinctive of the late Parmatma Sharan Jain and his sons, including Satish Kumar Jain, gained immense popularity and goodwill.

It was argued that several registrations were made by Satish Kumar Jain between 1996 and 2008 over the use of the trademark. Satish said that in 2021 Satish learnt that ‘Jain Shikanji Private Ltd’ incorporated in 2019 was carrying out a similar business of manufacturing, trading, and dealing in making of Shikanji Masala, soda, and snacks under the trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’.

The promoter director of the company, ‘Jain Shikanji Private Ltd’, is Anubhav Jain, whose father is also the son of Parmatma Sharan Jain. It was claimed by the company that ‘Jain’ was the family surname of Anubhav Jain and so they were free to use the ‘Jain Shikanji’ as a trademark for its business.

Rejecting the company’s contention that both ‘Jain’ and ‘Shikanji’ are two common generic words, which on combination cannot be used as a trademark and thus cannot acquire distinctiveness, the court held that the company had themselves used and also applied the said trademark ‘Jain Shikanji’ as a part of its trade name.

“This shows that the appellant itself identified and recognised the very same Jain Shikanji as a trade mark and also the brand value attached to it. Otherwise, why else would the appellant itself proceed to apply for registration of a generic expression ‘Jain Shikanji’ (on which it has a doubt of being a trademark),” the court observed.

The HC said that the words ‘Jain’ and ‘Shikanji’ when used separately are commonly used words but when used as a single word it is “distinctive and unique capable of being a mark in itself”.

The court also observed that the appellant had made “tall claims” that ‘Jain Shikanji’ is a family mark as the promoter-director of appellant has derived their rights from the originator of the said trademark – his forefathers and also his own parents. However no documents on this point where produced before the trial court, it said.

The HC said that at the “end of the day what has been appealed is an interim order” of the trial court and not a final order and unless there is some “arbitrariness, perversity or capriciousness” in the interim order the scope of interference by appellate forum is “extremely minimal”.

The High Court further said that it has a very limited role to play while exercising jurisdiction while deciding on an appeal from an interim order of a trial court.