MADHUR CONFECTIONERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. vs SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~111 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 274/2025, CM APPL. 60420/2025, CM APPL. 60421/2025 & CM APPL. 60422/2025 MADHUR CONFECTIONERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Ms Ishita Suri, Ms. Deeksha Gulati & Ms. Nidhi, Advs. versus SHREE RENUKA SUGARS LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Biala & Mr. Devesh Ratan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER (ORAL) % 23.09.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The dispute in this case relates to the use of the mark “MADHUR”. 2. The appellants instituted a suit against the respondent stating that the use of the mark “MADHUR”, by them, for confectionary items, infringed the registration held by the appellants for the mark “MADHUR”, also for confectionary items. 3. Admittedly, the respondent has no registration of the mark FAO (COMM) 274/2025 Signature Not Verified Page 1 of 3 Signed By:PREETI Signing Date:27.09.2025 14:54:34 “MADHUR” in any class which covers confectionary items. 4. The respondent, however, has a registration for the mark “MADHUR” for sugar. 5. The impugned order dated 6 August 2025 passed by the learned Commercial Court adjudicates an application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking an injunction against the respondent for using the mark “MADHUR”. The learned Commercial Court has rejected the prayer for injunction. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. 7. During the course of the hearing, it is an admitted position that, as on date, the respondent is not using the mark “MADHUR” for confectionary. 8. Mr. Shailen Bhatia, learned Counsel for the appellants submits, on instructions, that he has, at this interim stage, no objection to the respondent using its