Bardana Super Hi Tech Agro Tonic Private Limited vs. Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Private Limited And Others

Held

The High Court held that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off. The court noted that the appellant's assertion of using the mark since 2011 was unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence, such as invoices, balance sheets, or business records. The court found that the appellant's incorporation in 2017 and the limited period of usage (only two years, 2017-2018, even with additional evidence) were insufficient to establish distinctiveness or public reputation required for a passing off action. Regarding trademark infringement, the court found that the appellant's trademark for its products was not registered. Although an application was filed, it faced objections. The court stated that without registration for the relevant goods, the appellant cannot sustain an action for infringement, which is barred under Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's order and therefore declined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit against Amcons IPL (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt. Ltd. and others seeking permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The appellant also sought interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court, the Commercial Court (Principal District Judge), Pulwama, dismissed the application for interim relief by an order dated 11.07.2026. The appellant appealed this dismissal to the High Court of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar. The appeal challenges the trial court's order that denied the appellant interim injunctions against the respondents' alleged infringing activities related to fertilizers, manures, and allied goods under the mark 'SUPER AGRO-TECH'.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has established a prima facie case for passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the common law, considering the alleged use of the impugned mark 'SUPER AGRO-TECH' which is claimed to be deceptively similar to the appellant's marks like 'SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC'. The appellant argued that it has been using its marks since 2011 and has acquired distinctiveness and reputation. The respondents did not file any reply or arguments. The trial court found no prima facie case due to lack of evidence of long and continuous use. 2. Whether the appellant has established a prima facie case for trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, given that the appellant's trademark is allegedly unregistered in respect of its products. The appellant contended that its mark is being infringed. The respondents did not file any reply or arguments. The trial court noted the appellant's trademark is not registered for its products, making the action for infringement of an unregistered trademark barred under Section 27(1) of the Act. The appellant also sought to rely on additional evidence at the appellate stage.