The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a temporary injunction in a trademark dispute over the name ‘SARKARIRESULT’. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra upheld the Commercial Court of Varanasi’s order, which restrained Anugya Gupta and another from using the trademark, citing the plaintiff’s prima facie evidence of being the prior user of the mark.
The legal dispute centered on a passing-off action initiated by I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. against Anugya Gupta and another, alleging unauthorized use of a trademark identical and similar to ‘SARKARIRESULT’. The Commercial Court had granted a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, which the defendants subsequently appealed.
Background of the Case
I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff/respondent) filed Original Suit No. 2 of 2025 before the Commercial Court, Varanasi. The company claimed its business of providing employment and career-related information was established in 2009 under the name ‘Sarkari Result’ by the father of one of its directors. The plaintiff asserted that it had operated through various websites, including the domain sarkariexam.com purchased on June 26, 2009, which went live on November 22, 2009. The plaint detailed the launch of several sub-domains and mobile applications over the years, such as sarkariresult.sarkariexam.com in 2011, and claimed substantial revenue and user traffic, establishing significant goodwill.
The cause of action, as stated by the plaintiff, arose on January 12, 2025, upon discovering that defendant No. 1, Anugya Gupta, had applied to register the ‘SARKARIRESULT’ trademark. Following this, the plaintiff received a notice from the defendant on January 14, 2025, leading to the filing of the suit. The Commercial Court, after dispensing with the requirement for pre-institution mediation, granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on March 11, 2025. This was later confirmed by the order dated June 12, 2025, which was the subject of the present appeal.
Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments
The appellants, Anugya Gupta and another, challenged the injunction on several grounds. Their legal team, comprising counsels Devansh Misra, Saurabh Pandey, Vareesha Irfan, Anup Shukla, Imon Roy, Saurya Sharma, and Shantanu, argued that the trial court had wrongfully dispensed with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. They contended that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, specifically email communications from 2016 and 2023, which allegedly showed the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the defendants’ website Sarkariresult.com and had even sought a business partnership. This, they argued, demonstrated acquiescence and negated the claim of urgency required for an injunction.
The appellants asserted they had been using the domain Sarkariresult.com since 2012. They contested the plaintiff’s claim of using the sub-domain sarkariresult.sarakariexam.com since 2011, presenting digital trace evidence suggesting it was created only on March 17, 2025, after the ex-parte injunction was granted. They further argued that the trial court had made perverse findings, such as misreading their revenue figures and misinterpreting a 2019 tweet where they clarified they were not Sarkariexam.
Respondent’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments
Representing the plaintiff, counsels Rahul Agarwal, D.K. Misra, Paritosh Joshi, Ishita Farsaiya, Shailen Bhatia, and Deeksha Gulati countered that the plea regarding pre-institution mediation was untenable, especially since the appellants themselves had not sought mediation in other similar lawsuits they had initiated. They argued that the urgent nature of the relief sought, prompted by the defendants’ cease and desist notice giving only 24 hours, justified the dispensation.
Regarding the emails from 2016 and 2023, the plaintiff described them as automated marketing communications that were irrelevant, a fact underscored by the defendants’ own cease and desist notice which claimed they only became aware of the plaintiff in January 2025. The plaintiff presented evidence to establish its prior and continuous use of the ‘SARKARI RESULT’ mark since 2009, including a Municipal Corporation registration from 2011, WHOIS data for sarkariexam.com, screenshots of their website from 2009 showing a ‘SARKARI RESULT’ tab, and Google traffic reports.
The plaintiff also pointed to inconsistencies in the defendants’ claims, noting that their own evidence, such as their YouTube channel’s activity and revenue figures submitted to the Delhi High Court in another matter, only demonstrated significant use from 2017 onwards, contradicting their claim of use since 2012.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Kshitij Shailendra, first addressed the issue of pre-institution mediation. Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Yamini Manohar v. PKD and Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakeja Engineers Private Limited, the bench held that when a suit contemplates urgent interim relief, the Commercial Court is empowered to dispense with mediation. The Court observed, “…it was a suit for infringement of intellectual property rights in which an urgent interim relief was prayed for and the Court should focus on the legislative intent and distinction between words ‘entitlement’ to urgent interim relief and ‘contemplation’ of urgent interim relief.” The Court found no error in the procedure adopted by the Commercial Court.
On the merits of the injunction, the Court emphasized that its role was not to conduct a ‘mini trial’ but to assess the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The bench found that the plaintiff had presented substantial prima facie evidence of prior use of the ‘SARKARI RESULT’ mark dating back to 2009. In contrast, the Court noted inconsistencies in the defendants’ claims and evidence regarding their start date.
The judgment highlighted that the defendants had altered their defense, initially asserting their own rights and later introducing one Mukul Gupta and M/s LMC Computers as the right holders. The Court noted, “changing the stand from original defendants to Mukul Gupta and LMC Computers… is a circumstance that would be read against the defendants.”
On the issue of acquiescence based on the 2016 and 2023 emails, the Court found that these communications, in the overall context, could not be construed as the plaintiff waiving its rights. The Court referenced Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s India Stationary Products Co., stating, “in order to claim the defence of acquiescence, there should be a tacit or an express assent by the plaintiff to the defendant’s using the mark and in a way encouraging the defendants to continue with the business.”
Citing the Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, the bench reiterated a key principle of trademark law: “The overall effect of collective reading of the provisions of the Act is that the action for passing off which is premised on the rights of prior user generating a goodwill shall be unaffected by any registration provided under the Act.”
The Decision
Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the findings of the Commercial Court were not perverse and were based on a reasonable assessment of the material on record. The bench stated, “we do not find any good ground to take a view different from the one taken by the Commercial Court and are of the opinion that the order impugned does not call for any interference by this Court.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the temporary injunction against Anugya Gupta and another remains in force. The Court clarified that its observations are confined to the injunction stage and the suit will be decided on its merits after a full trial. A connected petition challenging the dispensation of mediation was also dismissed.
