Delhi Court Finds Violation Of Surya Roshni's 'SURYA' Mark, Injuncts 'SURYA GOLD,' Awards ₹3 Lakh Costs

A Commercial Court in Delhi has decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Surya Roshni Ltd., holding that Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd. infringed its registered “SURYA” mark by using the mark “SURYA GOLD” for PVC pipes, thereby subsuming the essential element “SURYA”.

The court, presided over by District Judge Devendra Kumar Sharma, held, “...In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is held that the plaintiff has proved its case on preponderance of probability that there was infringement of trademark/copyright of the plaintiff qua the PVC pipes, therefore, plaintiff is held entitled to decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 from manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, printing, offering for sale, displaying, advertising, promoting on the internet through any website or through any social media channels or through any physical store/locations or by any other mode or manner, any goods including PVC Pipes, PVC pipe fittings and/or any other identical, similar and/or allied and cognate goods bearing infringed trade mark or copyright of the plaintiff, directly or indirectly and in any manner"

Surya Roshni Limited, incorporated in 1973, manufactures and markets a wide range of products, including PVC pipes, steel pipes, and lighting products, under the brand "SURYA." It argued that the mark has been used extensively for decades and has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill, supported by trademark and copyright registrations.

According to the plaint, Surya Roshni first discovered PVC pipes bearing the mark “SURYA GOLD” in Central Delhi in March 2023. In May 2023, it located premises in Punjab linked to Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and Dhuri Polymers, where the infringing goods were allegedly being manufactured and distributed.

On September 27, 2023, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises. Inspections at two units, one in the name of Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and another in the name of Dhuri Polymers, revealed functioning manufacturing setups, stockpiles of PVC pipes, and pipes bearing the impugned marks “SURYA GOLD” and “UTTAM SURYA”.

Surya Roshni alleged that Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd. and Dhuri Polymers had copied its mark in entirety and were attempting to ride on its goodwill by using a deceptively similar mark for identical goods.

Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd., however, denied infringement, claiming it sold products under the marks “WATERFLEX” and “AKASH AGRO”. It further contended that pipes bearing the impugned marks were merely scrap or samples and not manufactured by it. No evidence was led in support of these claims, and Dhuri Polymers did not contest the proceedings. The court ultimately confined its findings to Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd.

Surya Roshni argued that the addition of the laudatory term “GOLD” did not distinguish the infringing mark from its well-known “SURYA” mark and that such use for identical goods was likely to cause confusion.

It also relied on the Local Commissioner's report and the defendants' IndiaMART listings indicating substantial turnover to justify its claim for damages.

Accepting Surya Roshni's case, the court placed significant reliance on the unchallenged Local Commissioner's report, holding it admissible evidence under Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC.

It noted that pipes bearing the impugned marks were found at the premises and that there was even an attempt to conceal them. The court observed:

“The perusal of the photographs of infringed goods annexed with it clearly reveals that the defendant was dealing in infringed goods bearing the trademark of the plaintiff. There is no reason to disbelieve the report regarding the finding of one pipe at the premises of defendant no.1 or its subsequent hiding, as no objection has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1 against this report.”

It further held, “The report of the Local Commission is admissible in evidence and can be treated to be sole ground of proof of the activities at the premises inspected by the Ld. Local Commissioner.”

The court also noted that Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd.'s failure to lead evidence left its defence unsubstantiated, while Surya Roshni's evidence remained unrebutted.

Concluding that Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd.'s conduct amounted to infringement and passing off, the court permanently restrained it from using the marks “SURYA”, “SURYA GOLD”, or any other deceptively similar marks in relation to PVC pipes and allied goods.

It also directed delivery of infringing goods to Surya Roshni for destruction.

The court further awarded punitive damages of Rs. 3 lakh to Surya Roshni, to be paid by Dhuri Plastic Pvt. Ltd., along with costs of the suit.