Rajasthan HC Sets Aside 10-Year-Old Decree Restricting Use Of 'METRO ENGINE' Mark, Orders Fresh Trial

The Rajasthan High Court on 19 May set aside a 2016 Trial Court judgment that had restrained Dhanvarsha Oil Mills from using the mark “METRO ENGINE” for its mustard oil products.

Justice Sameer Jain held that registration of a trademark under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act only raises a rebuttable presumption of validity and cannot, by itself, sustain a decree for infringement without a full trial on contested issues and remanded the suit for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis. He observed:

“...it is pertinent to observe that the plaintiff itself sought to cure these deficiencies by filing an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC at the appellate stage, thereby implicitly admitting that crucial evidence had not been produced before the Trial Court. This conduct further weakens the evidentiary foundation of the plaintiff's case.”

The original suit was instituted by Hari Industries, claiming proprietary rights over the trademark “ENGINE BRAND” for edible oils since 1957, with registrations dating back to 1959. It alleged that Dhanvarsha's use of “METRO ENGINE”, along with an electric locomotive device mark, was deceptively similar to its steam engine device mark and amounted to infringement and passing off.

The Trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of Hari Industries in May 2016. Dhanvarsha challenged the decree in appeal, and the High Court initially granted a stay in October 2016, later modified in February 2025 after noting adoption of a red-and-yellow colour scheme allegedly resembling the plaintiff's trade dress.

The High Court directed both parties to be permitted to lead additional evidence, including partnership deeds, licences, invoices, and account books. It further directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit preferably within one year and ordered maintenance of status quo as on the date of the judgment until fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, the Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis and permitted both parties to lead additional evidence.