Prefix GRO cannot save GROJINDAL: Delhi HC bars Punjab pipe maker from the mark pending trial
Justice Tejas Karia granted an interim injunction to Jindal Composite Tubes, holding that JINDAL remains the dominant feature of GROJINDAL, that a surname defence fails because JINDAL is not the defendant name, and that Delhi has jurisdiction because the plaintiffs carry on business there.
A pipe maker in Sunam, Punjab, took the JINDAL name, put the letters GRO in front of it and sold PVC pipes as GROJINDAL. On 6 November 2026 the Delhi High Court said that makes no difference, since the word JINDAL still carries the mark on pipes of the kind the Jindal companies have sold since 2001.
Justice Tejas Karia restrained Baldev Krishan, who trades as Goyal Polymers, and his distributor from using the mark while the trade mark suit is tried. The ruling is interim and the court said it does not decide the merits.
A market survey in Jalandhar
Jindal Composite Tubes Pvt Ltd and its sister concern sued in the Delhi High Court as CS(COMM) 622/2026. Plaintiff No. 1 has its registered office at Moti Nagar, New Delhi, and makes PVC, UPVC, CPVC, HDPE and other non-metallic pipes and fittings.
In the last week of February 2026, the plaintiffs said, a market survey in Jalandhar showed PVC pipes marked GROJINDAL on sale. They obtained an invoice of 27 February 2026 from Mr Krishan to a Jalandhar distributor, Defendant No. 2.
A legal notice of 12 March 2026 asked Mr Krishan to stop and to withdraw his two trade mark applications. His reply of 23 March said the mark was honestly adopted and in continuous use since 26 October 2020.
The plaintiffs confined the suit to infringement of their registered marks. They did not press a claim for passing off.
Twenty-five years against six
Mr Nikhil Chawla appeared for the plaintiffs. He said Plaintiff No. 1 holds the word mark JINDAL, registered in Class 17 for PVC pipes, bends and joints, with use claimed from 1 April 2001. It also holds a green-oval JINDAL device mark for HDPE, MDPE and PE pipes, with use claimed from 6 January 2003.
Sales under the JINDAL family of marks, he said, grew from Rs 76,57,000 in 2003-04 to Rs 45,26,71,000 in 2024-25. Promotional spending rose over the same years from Rs 2,76,000 to Rs 1,33,78,000.
The defendant’s first application, filed on 24 September 2020, was on a proposed-to-be-used basis and is under opposition. His second, of 5 March 2026, claims use from 26 October 2020. Even on that date, Mr Chawla argued, he came more than 19 years after the plaintiffs.
The prefix GRO, he said, is generic or laudatory and does nothing to avoid confusion. The explanation that GRO comes from Goyal could not justify taking the whole of JINDAL.
The defence: jurisdiction, surname, delay
Ms Mahima Grover appeared for Mr Krishan. She began with jurisdiction. The plaintiffs’ own papers showed the whole cause of action in Punjab, she said, and the plaintiffs themselves do business there, so a suit at their Delhi registered office could not stand.
She argued that the plaintiffs had not disclosed that the main registration, number 1018169, is limited to sale in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. Both registrations, she said, face rectification petitions filed by a third party on 5 November 2022.
On the merits she relied on Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. JINDAL is a common surname and the maternal family surname of Mr Krishan, she said, and several unrelated groups use it for pipes and tubes.
For the point that a territorially restricted registration cannot be enforced beyond its territory she cited Amir Biri Factory v. Mohd. Aslam. For the point that registration for particular goods gives no monopoly over every good in the class, she cited Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation.
She also said the plaintiffs had quantified their damages at Rs 2,00,05,000, which weakened any claim of irreparable harm. As an alternative, she offered to use GROJINDAL only as one word in a uniform font with a G device and a line naming Goyal Polymers, Sunam.
Why a Delhi court could hear it
The court took jurisdiction first. Mr Krishan had also filed applications to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and to reject it under Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Those are still pending, and the plaintiffs were given time to reply on 15 October 2026.
Justice Karia held that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act gives a plaintiff suing for infringement an extra forum, where it carries on business. Giving up passing off, he said, does not affect that. The plaintiffs said their registered office in Moti Nagar is where they carry on business.
The defendant’s Punjab argument, based on Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, applies only if the plaintiffs carry on business through a subordinate office in Punjab. The court found no material for that.
The affidavit alleging a Zirakpur office rested on information received. A territorial limit in a registration describes its scope and does not show a branch. Sales through an independent distributor on a principal-to-principal basis, under a distribution agreement of 2 July 2020, prima facie are not carrying on business there, and an IndiaMART listing adds nothing.
The court therefore held that it prima facie has territorial jurisdiction. That finding, it said, does not prejudice the two pending applications.
It had been asked to decide the point first, because of Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, which the defence read as requiring a reasoned view on territorial jurisdiction before any interim restraint. Justice Karia did exactly that, and only then turned to the registrations.
Registrations and rectification
Section 31(1) makes registration prima facie evidence of validity. The court noted that the defendant itself accepted that a third-party rectification petition does not by itself extinguish a registered mark. At this stage it did not affect Plaintiff No. 1’s rights.
The non-disclosure charge failed on the record. The table in paragraph 11 of the plaint set out the registration with the limit to sale in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.
Nor did the limit help the defendant. By his own account the goods are made in Sunam and sold in Jalandhar, both in Punjab, inside the registered territory. The device registration, number 1165594, carries no territorial limit.
JINDAL is the dominant feature
Justice Karia compared the marks as wholes. The defendant’s own photographs show a device containing GROJINDAL, and the plaintiffs’ photographs show JINDAL in large letters inside an oval, with GRO small above it. On either version, the court found, the mark takes in JINDAL entirely.
The key finding was brief:
“the word ‘JINDAL’ is the dominant and essential feature of the Impugned Mark” (para 16)
The prefix does not change the overall impression, he said. Section 29(9) treats spoken use of a mark as use of its words, and the court noted that in Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai the Supreme Court held SAI RENAISSANCE infringed RENAISSANCE for the same reason.
The goods are PVC pipes and fittings, identical to the registered goods, sold to the same distributors. A buyer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, he said, is likely to assume a link with the plaintiffs. Infringement under Sections 29(2)(b) and 29(9) was prima facie made out.
A surname defence without a surname
Section 35 protects only a person’s own name, the name of their place of business or of a predecessor, or an honest description of the goods. The proprietor is Mr Baldev Krishan, son of Mr Satpal Goyal, trading as Goyal Polymers.
The defendant explained only GRO, as drawn from Goyal, which the court said prima facie does not inspire confidence. No explanation was offered for JINDAL, which is not his name, his place of business or a predecessor’s name.
The claim that JINDAL is his maternal family surname was not made in the reply to the application and had no material behind it. Use of JINDAL by other entities does not justify taking it for identical goods.
Delay, court fee and balance of convenience
On delay, the court said a proposed-to-be-used application does not by itself show that the plaintiffs knew of use in the market. They said they found out in late February 2026, sent a notice on 12 March and then sued.
The plea that the court fee was paid late also failed. On 29 May 2026 the plaintiffs had been allowed to deposit it by 30 May, and did. Asking for a short time to pay does not undermine urgency.
On balance of convenience, the court noted the plaintiffs’ use since 2001 and sales of Rs 45,26,71,000 in 2024-25. The defendant placed no material on the extent of his business under the mark, and remains free to trade under any other mark.
The damages figure in the plaint, the court said, is for court fee and jurisdiction and does not make the injury compensable in money. The alternative offer was refused, since GROJINDAL itself had been found prima facie infringing.
Order
The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 is allowed. During the suit, the defendants and those acting for them are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising or marketing under GROJINDAL or GRO JINDAL, or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the registered marks.
The restraint covers MLC, PVC, UPVC, CPVC, CPVC rigid, HDPE, MDPE, PE and PPR-C pipes and fittings and allied and cognate goods. The court said its observations are confined to this application and do not express a view on the suit or the other pending applications.