Delhi High Court Denies Interim Injunction In 'NATRAJ' Trademark Dispute, Calls It Family Ownership Row

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant an interim injunction in a trademark dispute over the “NATRAJ” mark used for saffron and edible silver foil, holding that the case arises from a family ownership conflict requiring trial and that no prima facie case for exclusive rights was made out.

In an order delivered on March 28, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia observed, “The present case is not one where a stranger or an undisputed infringer is misusing Subject Mark. The present dispute is a dispute between members of the same family, each claiming a right in the Subject Mark and goodwill associated therewith. The core issue, therefore, is also one of ownership, which remains to be finally adjudicated. The balance of convenience, thus, does not favour grant of disruptive relief such as an interim injunction.”

The dispute arose from a commercial suit filed by Varun Chopra seeking to restrain his relatives from using marks such as “SV NATRAJ”, “SV RAJ”, “RAJNUT”, and “SRI NATRAJ JI”, alleging infringement and passing off of the “NATRAJ” trademark.

The plaintiff claimed that the mark originated from the family firm Raja Traders, established in 1956 and registered in 1978, and that his grandfather, J K Chopra, became the sole proprietor after 1980. It was further claimed that the trademark was assigned to him through a deed dated June 20, 2022.

He argued that the defendants had acknowledged J K Chopra's ownership through affidavits filed before the Trade Marks Registry and were therefore estopped from asserting competing rights. The plaintiff also contended that the impugned marks were deceptively similar and that the “NATRAJ” brand had acquired significant goodwill and secondary meaning.

The defendants, comprising the plaintiff's uncles and cousins, opposed the plea, contending that the dispute was a family matter involving shared rights in the mark and the underlying business. They relied on a 1971 will and a 2019 family arrangement to argue that the brand and its goodwill were jointly held and could not be exclusively claimed by one member.

They further argued that “NATRAJ”, being the name of a Hindu deity, could not be monopolised, and that their marks were distinct in overall appearance and usage.

Examining the rival marks, the Court applied the anti-dissection rule and held that marks such as “SV RAJ” and “RAJNUT” were prima facie dissimilar in their visual, phonetic and structural features and did not create a likelihood of confusion.

As regards marks incorporating “NATRAJ”, the Court noted that the plaintiff was not claiming exclusivity over the word per se and had not, at this stage, placed material on record to show that the composite mark or device had acquired such secondary meaning as to warrant exclusive protection.

The Court also observed that the plaintiff's claim of exclusive ownership was founded on documents such as the assignment deed and affidavits, which would require detailed examination at trial, particularly in light of competing claims by family members.

On the question of interim relief, the Court held that the balance of convenience did not favour the plaintiff, as any injunction would disrupt the defendants' ongoing business. It further found that any alleged loss could be compensated monetarily, and therefore no irreparable injury was made out.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction.

For Plaintiffs: Senior Advocate Apoorv Kurup with Advocates Puneet Yadav, Sourabh Gupta, Akshansh Gupta, Gurjas Varul, Vasudev, and MPriya Mittal

For Defendants: Senior Advocates Ankit Jain with Advocates Devesh Pratap Singh, Abhishek Kumar, Imtiaj, Aditya, Divya Prakash Arya, Ramadeep, Parth Gautam, and Eish Kesarwani