Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Use of 'Sachamoti' Brand Amid Family Dispute

The Delhi High Court recently (October 13) upheld an interim order restraining Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. (STPL) and certain family members, who are also directors of the company, from using the “Sachamoti” mark, a well-known brand of sabudana (sago) products. e members of Sabu family affirming a March 2024 Single Judge order that prohibited them from using the brand and label. The Court recognized the prima facie right of Rajkumar Sabu, the registered owner of the mark and a former director of STPL, as the prior user.The dispute arises from a long-standing family conflict over ownership and use of the “Sachamoti” trademark. STPL, incorporated in 1993, claimed it was the rightful owner, asserting use of the mark since the early 1990s. Rajkumar Sabu, on the other hand, maintained that the business was originally started in 1972 by his mother, Chandrakanta Sabu, under the name Shiv Trading Co. (STC), and that the rights to the trademark were formally transferred to him in the late 1990s.In 2016, Rajkumar Sabu filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and sought an injunction to prevent STPL and the family directors from using the mark. The Single Judge granted the injunction in March 2024, which was subsequently challenged in appeals.The court noted that Rajkumar Sabu holds multiple trademark registrations for “Sachamoti,” which serve as prima facie proof of ownership under Section 31 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Evidence included invoices and quotations dating back to the 1980s, predating STPL's earliest documented use of the mark in 1990. It observed , “The fact is that the mark “SACHAMOTI” and the copyright in the label are registered in favour of the respondent. The same shall enure to the benefit of the respondent insofar as the rights flowing under Sections 28 and 29 of the Act, is concerned, at least as of now.” Citing Sona Mandhira Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sona BLW Precision Forgings Ltd. & Ors., the court emphasized that intereference of appeal courts in interim orders should be minimal unless the lowers court's findings are perverse or arbitrary. Finding that the balance of convenience favored Rajkumar Sabu, the Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeals, allowing the injunction to continue until the suit is finally adjudicated. Case Title: Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1439 Case No: FAO(OS) (COMM) 61/2024 For the Appellant: Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak with Advocates Lalltaksh Joshi, Luv Virmani, Ananya Sanjiv Saraogi For the Respondent: Senior Advocate Chander Lall with Advocate Divyakant Lahoti, Vindhya Mehra, Samridhi Bhatt and M Ananya MohanClick Here To Read/Download The Order

Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Ban on Use of 'Sachamoti' Brand Amid Family Dispute

Ayushi Shukla

Tags