Gujarat HC Refuses Injunction In 'Shree Kshetrapal' Trademark Dispute, Imposes ₹50 Thousand Costs For Suppression

In a judgment delivered on March 16, 2026, Justice Niral R. Mehta held that the applicant was not entitled to equitable relief because he had suppressed material facts regarding a prior business relationship with the rival developer.

The court observed that a litigant who presents a distorted version of facts and approaches the court with unclean hands is not entitled to discretionary protection.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the appellant.

Anil Gopalji Thacker filed the appeal against a trial court order dated August 12, 2025, which had rejected his application for an interim injunction and vacated a previously granted ex-parte order.

He sought this relief to restrain Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra from using the trade name “Kshetrapal Construction,” which he claimed was deceptively similar to his own registered trademark, “SHREE KSHETRAPAL.”

Thacker contended that as the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the mark since 2015, he held the exclusive right to its use and to prevent others from using similar marks in the same line of business.

Conversely, Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra pleaded that the suit was based on a fundamental suppression of their joint history. The developer argued that he and Thacker had been business partners since 2017 and had jointly launched several real estate projects where the name “Kshetrapal” was used by mutual agreement.

Reviewing the evidence, the Court found that the applicant had indeed failed to disclose that both parties had jointly purchased land and launched projects like “Shree Kshetrapal Square-1” and “Square-2.”

The Judge noted that Thacker's contrary stance, claiming use since 2015 in court while telling the Registrar the mark was only "proposed to be used," amounted to a misleading presentation of the factual matrix.

On the merits of the trademark, the Court stated that under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, registration of a composite device mark confers exclusive rights only to the mark as a whole.

Applying the “anti-dissection rule,” the Bench observed that a proprietor cannot isolate one element of a mark to claim a monopoly over it. The Court remarked that since the word “Kshetrapal” refers to a deity and carries religious connotations, it lacks inherent distinctiveness and remains part of the public domain.

The Court observed that unlike casual consumer goods, a property buyer would undertake extensive verification and inquiry, making it highly improbable that they would be deceived by the similar names.

Accordingly, the court held, “This Court is therefore satisfied that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands, apart from this, even on merits as discussed hereinabove, is not entitled to the equitable relief. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order stands dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.50,000/-.”

For Anil Gopalji Thacker: Senior Advocate Harshit Tolia, with Advocate Pratik K Chaudhary

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Kamal B. Trivedi, with Advocates Shivang A Thacker and AR Thacker