1 2026:CGHC:7726-DB The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 05-01-2026 12-02-2026 - 12-02-2026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 05-01-2026 Judgment delivered on : 12-02-2026 MA No. 66 of 2024 M/s Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited Having Registered Office At Village Borjhara, Urla Guma Road, Urla Growth Center, Raipur- 493221, (C.G.) Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Sanjay Kamboj ... Appellant/plaintiff versus 1 - Mr. Mukesh Goyal R/o 216, Deshbandhu Complex, 2nd Floor, Near Agrasen Chowk, Ramsagarpara, Raipur- 492001, (C.G.) India 2 - M/s Goyal Global Steel Suppliers 216, Deshbandhu Complex, 2nd Floor, Near Agrasen Chowk, Ramsagarpara, Raipur- 492001, (C.G.) India 3 - Goyal Global Metal Mart Pvt. Ltd. 216, Deshbandhu Complex, 2nd Floor, Near Agrasen Chowk, Ramsagarpara, Raipur- 492001, (C.G.), 2 India 4 - Goyal Global Ispat Private Ltd. 216, Deshbandhu Complex, 2nd Floor, Near Agrasen Chowk, Ramsagarpara, Raipur- 492001, (C.G.), India 5 - Goyal Steel Supply Company Infra Development Private Ltd. 23A N S Road, 10th Floor, Room No. 2, Kolkata- 700001, West Bengal 6 - Nihal Traders Main Road, Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla- Maanpur Chowki, (C.G.) India 7 - Raj Steel Champa Main Road, Opposite Sabsibaba Petrol, Champa, (C.G.) India ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Sudarshan Bansal, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Ms. Astha Shukla and Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Mr. Pushkar Bhandarkar and Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocates. For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ghanshyam Patel and Mr. Shivansh Gopal, Advocates. For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Manay Nath Thakur, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ CAV Judgment Per Rajani Dubey, J Challenge in this appeal is to the legality and validity of the order dated 28th May, 2024 passed by learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Raipur in Civil Suit No.01-A/2022 whereby the 3 application filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been rejected. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the learned Commercial Court.) 02. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the Plaintiff is the prior user and prior registrant of the trademark GOEL and its variants and formatives in relation to manufacture and trade of TMT bars and sarias and related goods. Plaintiff is the user from the year 2000 in relation thereto and the plaintiff holds various trademark registrations as detailed in para No.6 of the Appeal (para No.8 of the plaint). For example plaintiff’s registration under No.1122404, 1399503 and 1469138 all in class 6 are with the user in the year 2000. Appellant has filed numerous documents in support of its use. The defendants are trader dealing in selling TMT Bars of various manufacturers like Jindal, Tata, SAIL etc. They were retailing TMT Bars of the plaintiff (plaintiff’s sister concern) under the trademark GOEL. Thus the defendants cannot challenge the plaintiff’s rights. The defendants malafide attempted to or has ventured into and sought solicitation of his own manufacture and trade of TMT Saria under the trademark GOYAL GLOBAL in or about November/December, 2021 instead of retailing business. This is apparent from the defendants own documents. Thus cause of action has arisen and suit was filed immediately thereafter. 03. It was further averred that the plaintiff has no objection to the defendants’ use of the trademark/trade name GOYAL GLOBAL in 4 relation to its existing business of a trader in the goods of other manufactures including those of the plaintiff. All documents filed by the defendants including invoices and income tax returns show them only as a trader. The defendants ventured into the plaintiff’s business under the impugned trademark/trade name malafide and to derive benefit from the plaintiff’s business and its goodwill. The trademark embossed upon the TMT saria Bars which are black and dark products is the trademark GOEL and GOYAL GLOBAL There is close phonetic, visual, conceptual resemblance between the trademark GOEL and GOYAL. The word GLOBAL is only laudatory and embellishes the trademark GOYAL. The word/mark GOEL and GOYAL are the essential and distinguishing feature of the marks which would be retained in the consumer mind with fading memory and imperfect recollection. The business of the parties are the same. The consumers and markets are the same. The defendants have undertaken to the IPAB (now transferred to Bombay High Court) in cancellation proceedings filed by the plaintiff against it that it would not rely on its registration against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s cause of action is based for infringement as well as passing off. Passing off remedy is independent of registration and can lie against a registered trademark as well based on prior use, accrued goodwill, distinctiveness, consumer deception or likelihood of consumer deception and irrespective of honesty or fraud. 04. By way of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC before the learned Commercial Court, the plaintiff sought an interim 5 injunction to restrain all the defendants by themselves and through all other persons acting for and on their behalf from using, soliciting, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and advertising in 'steel goods' and goods of common metal in class 06, goods/services mentioned in trade the mark applications/registrations of defendants and other allied steel products under the impugned trade mark/tradename/domain name GOYAL GLOBAL/GOYAL or any other trade mark/trade name/domain name that is deceptively similar/identical to plaintiff's GOEL trade mark or any other trade mark/trade name containing a word deceptively similar, identical to plaintiff's GOEL trademarks as amounting to infringement of plaintiff's GOEL trademarks and passing off of the goods of the defendants' for those of the plaintiff's as also certain other ancillary reliefs. 05. The defendants have filed their respective written statements and replies opposing the plaintiff’s suit and application for injunction. Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 have jointly pleaded that the suit is not maintainable on account of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel, contending that the plaintiff has been transacting with them since 2017–18 and was fully aware of the defendants’ trademark “GOYAL GLOBAL.” They assert that “GOYAL” is their family name, common to many Indian families, and therefore cannot be exclusively claimed or monopolized under the Trademarks Act. According to them, the suit for 6 infringement is not maintainable and only a passing-off action, if any, could lie. 06. The said defendants claim continuous use of the mark since 1963 as descendants of Soorajmal Agrawal alias Goyal. They state that a partnership firm, Goyal Industrial Corporation, was formed in 1963, followed by Goyal Steel Supply Co. in 1976, and that the family has continuously carried on business in steel products under the “GOYAL” name. Defendant No. 1, being the son of Dharamchand Goyal, formed a proprietorship firm in 2001 under the name “GOYALGLOBAL STEEL SUPPLIER.” The defendants contend that the mark “GOYAL GLOBAL” was honestly and bona fide adopted, combining the family name with the suffix “GLOBAL,” accompanied by distinctive artistic features, and that they have extensively used and publicised the mark. The defendants further aver that the word “GOYAL” is common to trade and no exclusive right can vest in the plaintiff. They allege that the plaintiff’s registrations are malafide, composite in nature, and do not confer proprietary rights over the word “GOEL” per se. They also contended that the plaintiff suppressed material facts and misrepresented before the Trademark Registry. Reliance is placed on the fact that rectification proceedings are pending before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, wherein no stay was granted to the plaintiff by order dated 06.10.2020. 7 07. Defendant No. 5 filed a separate written statement denying all allegations and asserting that although the company was incorporated by a family member of Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 resigned in 2010–11. Defendant No. 5 claims it has never used the plaintiff’s trademark, nor manufactured or sold goods under “GOYAL GLOBAL.” Defendant No. 7 failed to file a written statement within time and his right was struck off; however, in reply to the injunction application, he stated that he is merely a seller, has not conducted any transaction with the parties, and has been unnecessarily impleaded, resulting in misjoinder of parties. All defendants denied the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiff and prayed for rejection of the injunction application of the plaintiff. 08. Learned Commercial Court having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the material on record by the impugned order dated 28.05.2024 rejected the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC observing that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for grant of interim relief. Hence this appeal. 09. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant who is engaged in manufacturing of steel and other variety of steel items under the name of GOEL TMT and the respondent No.1 who has registered as GOYAL GLOBAL are passing off trade mark. They submitted that an undertaking was given before the Intellectual 8 Property Appellate Board on 06.10.2020 that the respondents shall not rely upon the registration against the appellant’s application. Therefore the undertaking which was given in the said order dated 06.10.2020 is being bypassed by the present act with aid of order of the Commercial Court. They further submitted that the judgment of the learned Commercial Court relies on an order passed by Delhi High Court on 15.05.2024 in the matter of Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Landsmill Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.) CS (COMM) 523/2023, however, the injunction application was heard on 10.05.2024 and at that time it was not before Court. Therefore, in all fairness the appellant cannot be taken aback by the act of the Court and in any case even if such case law is relied upon by the Commercial Court, proper opportunity should have been given to the appellant to answer it. It is stated that no order prejudicial to the appellant can be passed on a fact not before them. 10. Learned counsel would contend that this judgment dated 15.05.2024 is under challenge before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O (OS) (COMM) 111/2024. The Division Bench in its order dated 30.05.2024 has observed in para 9 thereof of the interpretation made by the learned Single Judge on the aspects of "initial interest confusion" to be erroneous. A copy of the order dated 30.5.2024 has been filed in this appeal. This appeal is pending and as such no finality could be attached to the judgment of the learned Single 9 Judge relied upon by the learned Commercial Judge in the impugned Order. 11. They further argued that the learned Commercial Court has observed that the GOYAL GLOBAL was registered in prior point of time dated 25.08.2008, however, the order itself would show that the wrong averments have been recorded at the registration of GOEL TMT Sariya which was made in the year 2000. They would submit that it is not possible for a purchaser to have a microscopic inspection before such purchase is made which normally in the iron is embossed in black and since there is a deceptively similarity, it would lead to passing off act, therefore, application for interim relief filed by the appellant deserved to be allowed. However, the learned Commercial Court did not consider the aforesaid factual and legal position in its proper perspective and mechanically rejected the application. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC deserves to be allowed. 12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants vehemently opposed the contention of the appellant and supporting the impugned order would submit that the learned Commercial Court minutely appreciated all the documentary evidence and thus rightly rejected the injunction application of the appellant. Learned Commercial Court rightly observed that the appellant has failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour and in 10 the event of grant of interim injunction, it would cause the respondents immense hardship whereas there is no irreparable loss likely to be caused to the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. This Court in operative paragraphs of its order dated 9.7.2024 observed as under: “At the outset, it appears that the appellant as per the order which is referred to shows that the appellant's registration was in the prior point of time, therefore, subject to just exception, the observations made by the learned Commercial Court do not impress us. Furthermore, the another fact which has been pointed out is that the injunction was heard on 10.05.2024 and the Commercial Court in its order has dismissed the application for interim prayer on a reference of order passed in Mountain Valley (supra) which is of 15.05.2024. It is further submitted that the appeal has been admitted against the judgment which is pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court. Therefore, prima-facie, it appears that the injunction was heard on 10.05.2024 and the reference of the Delhi High Court was taken on 15.05.2024, which is subsequent. The Court could not have held the brief or otherwise the Court should have given the proper opportunity to the appellant to make their submission. Since it is a settled proposition that the act of the Court should not harm or prejudice anyone. 11 Further, in the order of appellate Board the undertaking was given on 06.10.2020 before the Intellectual Property Appellate Court by respondents to say that they would not rely on whereby undertaking was given not to act upon registration. Therefore, at this stage, considering prima-facie case, we are inclined to admit this appeal. It is admitted accordingly for final hearing. In view of prima-facie acts recorded, the order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Commercial Court shall remain stayed. Consequently the observation made shall not be used against the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are restrained from using any trade mark in GOYAL GLOBAL trade mark including GOEL logo, till the appeal is finally decided on merits.” 15. It is not in dispute that Civil Suit No.01-A/2022 is pending before the learned Commercial Court for adjudication. This order was passed on 9.7.2024 in which this Court observed that before the learned Commercial Court the injunction application was heard on 10.5.2024 and the impugned order was passed on 28.5.2024 relying upon the order dated 15.5.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi and that the Court should have given proper opportunity to the appellant to make their submission as it is settled proposition that the act of the Court should not harm or prejudice anyone. After passing of this order, admittedly, 1 ½ years have elapsed, therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to remand the matter to the Commercial Court for decision afresh on the injunction application after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. However, in the totality of facts and 12 circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to direct the learned Commercial Court to decide the the suit itself on its own merits expeditiously after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to the parties and till then the interim order dated 9.7.2024 of this Court shall remain in operation. 16. In the result, the instant appeal is disposed of with a direction to learned Commercial Court to decide the civil suit pending before it as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment, subject to cooperation of the parties. However, the interim order dated 9.7.2024 passed by this Court restraining respondents No. 1 to 5 from using any trade mark in GOYAL GLOBAL trade mark including GOEL logo, shall remain in force till the civil suit is finally decided on merits. Needless to say, the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce additional oral and/or documentary evidence in support thereof and be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case, and the learned Commercial Court shall be free to decide the suit on its own merits strictly in accordance with law. Sd/ Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.02.12 11:18:23 +0530