Delhi High Court Rejects Sujata Home Appliances Plea To Use 'SUJATA' As Corporate Name

The Delhi High Court has refused to allow Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. to use the mark “SUJATA” as its corporate identity, holding that a limited exception granted in 2020 for specific products did not dilute the broader restraint under earlier orders.

The suit was filed by Mittal Electronics, the registered proprietor of the “SUJATA” trademark.

Sujata Home Appliances had approached the court seeking clarification of a September 9, 2020 order to permit use of “SUJATA” as its trade and corporate name for water filters, water purifiers, and RO systems.

On February 7, 2020, the court had passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Sujata Home Appliances from using the mark “SUJATA” in respect of various products. The injunction was granted in terms of Mittal Electronics' prayer, which included restraint on use of the mark not only on products but also as part of corporate names, domain names, and email addresses.

The September 9, 2020 order had relaxed the earlier injunction to a limited extent, allowing Sujata Home Appliances to continue manufacturing and selling water filters, water purifiers, and RO systems under the “SUJATA” mark.

In the latest ruling dated April 2, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made it clear that this relaxation was confined strictly to use of the mark on those specified products and did not permit its adoption as a corporate or trade name.

The court emphasised that the 2020 modification was only an exception carved out of the original restraint, and could not be read as diluting or displacing the wider restrictions that continued to operate.

Observing that Sujata Home Appliances had approached the court after nearly five years, the judge noted that no explanation had been offered for the delay despite earlier proceedings between the parties.

“This Court can safely infer that the long silence demonstrates that the parties were under no illusion or uncertainty of the directions passed in orders dated 07.02.2020 and 09.09.2020. This is also relevant since the plaintiff had filed an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC in the year 2021 itself on the violation of the defendant's use of the mark 'SUJATA' as its corporate or trade name. Why the defendant did not initiate any such action previously, that too in time, is a mystery.,” the court said.

Sujata Home Appliances had argued that the permission to use the trademark “SUJATA” for specific products should also permit use of the mark as its trade or corporate name for those products.

Rejecting this, the court held that the 2020 modification merely created an exception and did not “supplant the directions” in the earlier injunction, which continued to operate.

The court also noted that the original injunction had been passed in terms of the plaintiff's prayer clause, which expressly covered use of the mark as part of a corporate name.

Finding no merit in the plea, the court dismissed the application.