After 50 Years, Delhi High Court Bars Both Registered Proprietor And Prior User From Using 'FIELDMARSHAL' For Pumps

The Delhi High Court has brought a five-decade dispute over the “FIELDMARSHAL” trademark to an unusual end by barring both rival manufacturers from using the mark for centrifugal pumps, after finding that one held a valid registration while the other had built prior market goodwill.

A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on February 6, 2026, in a long-running battle between PM Diesels Private Limited (PMD) and Thukral Mechanical Works, holding that neither side could lawfully use the “FIELDMARSHAL” brand in the centrifugal pump market.

PMD has been the registered proprietor of the word mark “FIELDMARSHAL” for diesel engines since 1964. Although it never held a specific registration for centrifugal pumps, the court accepted evidence showing that PMD had been selling pumps under the mark since 1975 and had built substantial goodwill in the pump market well before Thukral's first proven use.

Thukral traced its claim to a separate registration for “FIELD MARSHAL” for centrifugal pumps dating back to 1965, originally granted in favour of its predecessor, Jain Industries. However, the Bench found that neither Jain nor Thukral had produced credible evidence of actual use of the mark on centrifugal pumps until 1988.

The dispute was shaped in large part by a 2009 ruling of the Supreme Court of India, which had held that Jain was the only registered proprietor of “FIELD MARSHAL” for centrifugal pumps. The Supreme Court had ruled that, to the extent PMD and Thukral used the mark for pumps, “both the appellant and the first respondent were the infringers of the right of Jain Industries,” a finding the Division Bench noted had been overlooked by the Single Judge.

In subsequent proceedings, a single judge of the Delhi High Court cancelled the 1965 pump registration on grounds of alleged non-use and defects in the assignment to Thukral. Reversing that decision, the Division Bench held that non-use by a predecessor could not automatically be held against a bona fide assignee, recalling the Supreme Court's clear warning that “the mistake of the predecessor should not be visited with non-use of the present registered owner.”

The bench noted that Thukral became the registered proprietor with effect from May 30, 1986, and that evidence of use from 1988 meant there was no qualifying period of non-use by Thukral itself to justify cancellation under the non-use provision.

At the same time, the Court upheld PMD's independent passing-off claim. After examining invoices, dealer testimony, and advertisements from the 1960s through the mid-1980s, including pump-specific material from the 1970s, it found that PMD had established goodwill in “FIELDMARSHAL” centrifugal pumps from at least 1975.

The bench held that “Thukral could not seek to displace the right of PMD to obtain an injunction on the ground of passing off, arising out of the goodwill accumulated by PMD” in the pump market before Thukral's actual use.

Explaining the legal position, the court emphasised that goodwill and registration operate in different spheres. While goodwill cannot defeat a finding of infringement, the Bench clarified that “The TMMA does not envisage goodwill to be a defence against injunction where infringement is found to exist,” even though such goodwill can independently sustain a passing-off injunction.

Relying on Kerly's Law of Trade Marks, the bench described the case as a classic legal stalemate, observing that “an impasse ensues” in circumstances where a registered proprietor has not used a mark while another trader has meanwhile built goodwill through prior use.

The result is a stalemate. Both PMD and Thukral are restrained from using the “FIELDMARSHAL” mark for centrifugal pumps and allied products. PMD remains free to use the mark for its diesel engines, but the centrifugal pump market is now off-limits to both sides under the disputed brand.

For Appellant: Advocates Hemant Singh, Sachin Gupta, Rohit Pradhan, Ajay, Prashansa Singh, adarsh, and Mahima Chanchalani.

For Respondents: Advocates N. Mahabir, P.C. Arya, Noopur Biswas, and Udit Gupta.