Synopsis

Respondent no. 2 (proprietor of registered device mark “ardh sainik canteen”) filed a suit for trademark infringement against the appellant who adopted the mark “bhhutporv ardh sainik kalyan canteen”. the appellant’s father had earlier approached the respondents for a franchise but did not proceed. the trial court decreed the suit, granting permanent injunction and damages of ₹3,00,000. the appellant appealed, arguing lack of authorisation for respondent no.1 (an unincorporated entity) and absence of evidence of actual confusion. the division bench dismissed the appeal, holding that (i) the suit was maintainable as respondent no.2 was the registered proprietor; (ii) lack of authorisation for respondent no.1 was a curable defect; (iii) in infringement cases, likelihood of confusion suffices; actual proof is not required; and (iv) damages were justified given the appellant’s dishonest adoption.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 6th May 2026

Citation: RFA(COMM) 149/2026 (2026:DHC:4190-DB)

Core Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 29 (infringement), 135 (relief); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 15, Order XXIX Rule 1 (authorisation to sue).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Rfa(comm) 149/2026 & cm appl. 16586/2026

Bhhutporv ardh sainik kalyan canteen / ex-ardh sainik kalyan canteen (appellant) vs. Ardh sainik canteen & anr. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice v. kameswar rao and hon’ble ms. justice manmeet pritam singh arora

Date: 6th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.