Uttarakhand High Court Restrains Use Of 'SWARNIKA' Mark Pending Suit Over Similarity With 'SUNAREKA'

The Uttarakhand High Court on 7 October held that a court must assess competing trademarks as a whole while determining deceptive similarity, and restrained jeweller Poonam Bhatt from using “SWARNIKA” pending the disposal of a suit alleging infringement of Deepanshu Bansal's registered mark “SUNAREKA”.

Justice Ravindra Maithani allowed Bansal's appeal against the trial court's refusal to grant an interim injunction, holding that the Bench could not disregard similarities between the marks merely because their spellings differed.

Bansal sells gold, silver and diamond jewellery under the mark “SUNAREKA”. He applied to register the mark on 9 September 2022 and obtained registration on 28 July 2023. He subsequently sued Bhatt before the court in Udham Singh Nagar for trademark infringement and passing off over her use of “SWARNIKA”.

Bhatt contended that her brand, “Swarnika Gems and Jewels”, derived its name from “Swarn”, meaning gold, and was distinct from Bansal's mark. The First Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, dismissed Bansal's application for an interim injunction on 18 July 2026, prompting him to appeal before the High Court.

The Court held that courts must assess marks in their entirety because consumers rarely encounter competing marks side by side. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (1963) and observed, “similarity in the marks which is being used by the respondent. Their items are also similar.”

Further, the Bench considered the chronology of the parties' businesses. Bansal applied to register “SUNAREKA” in September 2022, while Bhatt began selling gold jewellery only in June 2023. Before that, she dealt in gemstones, rudraksha and pearls under a different name. It noted that both shops operate on the same street, less than 500 metres apart.

Justice Maithani found that Bansal had established a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience favoured him given his approximately 12 years in the jewellery trade, and that continued infringement of his registered mark would cause irreparable loss. Although it acknowledged the limited scope of appellate interference with an order refusing interim relief, it held that the trial court had erred in its assessment.

Accordingly, the High Court restrained Bhatt, her directors, agents, distributors and retailers from manufacturing, selling, advertising or otherwise dealing in “SWARNIKA” or any deceptively similar mark until the suit is decided.