Delhi High Court Restrains Both Ashiana Ispat And Kamdhenu From Using 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Mark

The Delhi High Court on 1 July upheld an interim injunction passed by a Single-Judge Bench restraining Ashiana Ispat Limited (AIL) from using the trademark “AL KAMDHENU GOLD”, while simultaneously restraining Kamdhenu Limited (KL) from adopting the same mark.

A Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that AIL failed to acquire proprietary rights over the mark after abandoning its trademark application and failed to establish commercial use, while KL's subsequent attempt to appropriate the mark was prima facie dishonest. The judges observed:

"The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the appellant has failed to establish a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction is a plausible one."

The dispute arose out of a 2002 family settlement restructuring the Kamdhenu group. Under the settlement, KL retained ownership of the "KAMDHENU" brand, while AIL was permitted to adopt and register the trademark "AL KAMDHENU GOLD".

AIL argued that the 2002 Agreement operated as an assignment of rights, making it the absolute proprietor of the mark. It contended that its continuous use of the mark since 2002 was evidenced by statutory notices and corporate filings.

The Court, however, found that AIL's ownership was contingent upon registration under Clause 24 of the 2002 Agreement. Since AIL allowed its trademark application filed in 2002 to be abandoned in 2008 and failed to produce a single invoice evidencing sale of goods bearing the mark between 2002 and 2024, the Bench held that AIL remained only a licensee and never acquired proprietary rights.

KL contended that it was the prior registered proprietor of formative marks such as "KAMDHENU GOLD" and argued that AIL's continued use of the mark after termination of the licence in 2024 amounted to trafficking in the brand.

The Bench upheld the finding that "AL KAMDHENU GOLD" is deceptively similar to KL's registered marks. However, it also criticised KL for pursuing registration of a mark it had expressly agreed to withdraw under the 2002 Agreement, observing that its conduct reflected bad faith.

It further noted that AIL failed to protect its interests for sixteen years and sought registration again only in December 2024 after receiving KL's termination notice. Conversely, it found that KL's adoption of the "AL" prefix in late 2024 was a tactical move intended to "checkmate" AIL.

Moreover, the Court held that although the Single Judge's conclusion that AIL had failed to establish proprietary rights was plausible, corresponding restraints on KL were necessary to preserve the parties' respective rights pending adjudication.

Accordingly, the Division Bench upheld the injunction restraining AIL from using "AL KAMDHENU GOLD", while also restraining KL from using the same mark until the rights of the parties are finally determined.