Delhi High Court Protects Gaay Chhap Detergent, Restrains Use Of 'Gopal Gai Chhap' and 'Cow Brand' Marks
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Gaay Chhap, a Kanpur-based detergent brand, restraining a Uttar Pradesh trader from using the marks “Gopal Gai Chhap” , “Cow Brand,” and similar labels for detergent soaps, cakes, and washing powders. Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on November 24, 2025, after finding that Gaay Chhap had shown prior and...
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Gaay Chhap, a Kanpur-based detergent brand, restraining a Uttar Pradesh trader from using the marks “Gopal Gai Chhap” , “Cow Brand,” and similar labels for detergent soaps, cakes, and washing powders.
Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on November 24, 2025, after finding that Gaay Chhap had shown prior and continuous use of its marks and made out a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.
The order came in a commercial suit filed by the Gaay Chhap manufacturer, which said it adopted the “Cow Brand” and “Gaay Chhap” marks in 1975 and has been selling detergents under these names ever since. It also told the court that it holds several trademark registrations and copyright protection for its label designs.
The rival trader, however, claimed it has been using “Gopal Gai Chhap” and “Cow Brand” since 1973 and has pending trademark applications. It opposed the injunction by arguing that the suit was not maintainable and that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since both parties operate outside Delhi. It also contended that a mere online listing could not confer jurisdiction.
The court disagreed. It held that the trader's products were offered for sale on an interactive e-commerce platform accessible in Delhi, which was enough to show that part of the cause of action arose within the city. Taking the plaint's averments as correct at this stage, the court ruled that “this Court has the territorial jurisdiction in view of the accessibility of the IndiaMart listing, which is interactive in nature and because the Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the jurisdiction of this Court.”
After examining the marks and the evidence on record, the court found the rival trader's labels “deceptively similar” to Gaay Chhap's long-used branding. It also noted that the trader had failed to substantiate its claim of using the marks since 1973.
“The test of confusion is to be seen from the perspective of an average person with imperfect recollection getting confused and in view of the Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Marks being almost identical, any ordinary person would get confused and would not be able to distinguish between the Plaintiff's Marks and the Impugned Marks,” the court said.
After examining the marks and the evidence on record, the Court found the rival trader's labels “deceptively similar” to Gaay Chhap's long-used branding. It also noted that the trader had failed to substantiate its claim of using the marks since 1973.
Relying on precedents in Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co. and Automatic Electric Limited V. R.K. Dhawan and Anr.,the court reiterated that the rights of a prior user override even those of a prior registrant. It also pointed out that since the trader itself had applied for trademark registration, it could not claim that the plaintiff's marks were merely descriptive.
Holding that this was a “case of triple identity” i.e., identical marks, identical product category and identical trade channels, the court concluded that injunction is a relief in equity and it lies in favour of “Gaay Chhap” brand.
The Court therefore restrained the defendant and anyone acting for it from using the disputed marks or any deceptively similar mark, and from using labels that infringe the manufacturer's artistic works.
Case Title: Sunil Niranjan Shah v. Vijay Bahadur
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1600
Case Number: CS(COMM) 669/2025
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocates Sanjeev Sindhwani with Advocate Anil Kumar Sahu, Satish Kumar, Sreejan Pankaj and Kartik Kumar Agarwal
For Defendant: Advocate Osho Mittal