SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt Ltd against a rival fertiliser company, upholding the rejection of its application for an interim injunction after finding that it had failed to produce documentary evidence establishing long-standing use and market reputation of its disputed brand.
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and Justice Sindhu Sharma, in a judgment pronounced on November 6, held that the appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case of passing off or trademark infringement against Amcons IPL (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and others.
The Bench observed that the appellant had neither produced invoices nor balance sheets or other business records to substantiate its claim that it had been using the disputed trademarks since 2011. It also found that the relevant trademarks had not been registered for its fertiliser products, making an infringement action on that basis unsustainable under Section 27(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
“We do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court,” the Bench observed while dismissing the appeal.
The company had challenged an order dated July 11, 2026, passed by the Commercial Court (Principal District Judge), Pulwama, which had rejected its application seeking temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and vacated an earlier ex parte restraint order.
The dispute arose after Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt Ltd alleged that the respondents were manufacturing, marketing and selling fertiliser and manure products under the brand name ‘SUPER AGRO-TECH’, using packaging and design elements deceptively similar to its products marketed as ‘HI-TECH AGRO TONIC’ and ‘SUPER HI-TECH AGRO TONIC’.
The appellant claimed that it had been engaged in the research, development and commercialisation of agro-tonic and organic manure products since 2001 and had actively marketed its products under the disputed brand expressions from around 2011.
It maintained that its packaging, featuring apple imagery, a red-and-yellow colour scheme, crown-like logo placement, a central brand panel and distinctive border treatment, had acquired substantial goodwill and recognition in the market.
The company alleged that the respondents had deliberately adopted similar trademarks and packaging to exploit its established reputation and divert its customers. It further claimed that its sales, which earlier exceeded 200 truckloads, had fallen to around 50 truckloads during the current season because of the respondents’ alleged activities.
The appellant also alleged copyright infringement, passing off, unfair competition and misrepresentation of the commercial origin of the respondents’ products. It sought permanent injunctions, withdrawal of allegedly infringing goods, damages of Rs 3 crore and other reliefs.
The respondents, however, contested the allegations, arguing that expressions such as ‘SUPER’, ‘HI-TECH’, ‘AGRO’ and ‘AGRO TONIC’ were descriptive, generic and commonly used in the fertiliser and agricultural products market. They maintained that the appellant could not claim exclusive rights over such commonly used expressions.
They further argued that their packaging, visual presentation and overall trade identity were distinct and distinguishable from those of the appellant. The respondents also contended that the company had failed to produce any independent market survey, consumer complaints, dealer statements or other material demonstrating actual customer confusion or diversion of trade.
They disputed the appellant’s copyright claims as well, arguing that common packaging arrangements, colour schemes and customary trade features did not automatically confer exclusive copyright protection.
The case was initially instituted before the Commercial Division of the High Court, which, on March 25, 2026, passed an ex parte interim order restraining the respondents from dealing in fertiliser and manure products under the disputed mark ‘SUPER AGRO-TECH’ and from passing off their goods as those of the appellant.
However, after the respondents questioned the maintainability of the proceedings before the High Court, the Commercial Division, on April 24, 2026, transferred the suit to the Commercial Court at Pulwama, leaving it open to the transferee court to confirm, modify or vacate the interim order.
The appellant subsequently challenged the transfer before the Supreme Court, but its Special Leave Petition was dismissed on May 26, 2026.
After the matter reached the Commercial Court, the trial court rejected the appellant’s application for interim relief and vacated the earlier restraint order, prompting the present appeal before the High Court.
Challenging the trial court’s decision, the appellant argued that it had specifically pleaded continuous use of the trademarks since 2001 and that the absence of documentary evidence for the entire period should not have resulted in rejection of its claim at the interim stage.
It also contended that the trial court had effectively conducted a mini-trial while deciding the application for temporary injunction and had wrongly treated the absence of documentary evidence as conclusive.
The appellant further argued that the trial court had overlooked its trademark registrations, including Registration No. 4151497 in Class 1 and Registration Nos. 4615317 and 4615318 in Class 35. It also sought permission to produce additional documentary evidence in the form of invoices for 2017-18.
After examining the rival submissions, the High Court held that a party seeking relief in a passing-off action must establish prior use of the trademark, reputation in the relevant market and a likelihood of misrepresentation causing commercial or reputational injury.
The Bench observed that “proof of prior user and local recognition is essential” for establishing a passing-off claim.
Examining the material placed on record, the court found that the appellant had failed to substantiate its claim of long-standing use or establish that its products had acquired distinctiveness in the market.
“Not even a single document has been placed on record by the plaintiff to show that it has been using the mark in question on its products since the year 2011 as claimed by it,” the judgment stated.
The court further noted that the appellant had not produced any invoice, balance sheet or business-related record demonstrating continuous use of the disputed mark or substantial commercial activity under it.
It also observed that the company had not produced documentary evidence establishing that it had been in business before its incorporation in 2017.
On the trademark infringement claim, the Bench held that the relevant marks relating to the appellant’s fertiliser products had not been registered, although applications had been filed and remained under objection.
The court clarified that the appellant’s registration under Class 35, which covers advertising, business management, business administration and office functions, could not be treated as registration of the trademark for its fertiliser products.
“Without registration of trade mark in respect of its products, the plaintiff cannot sustain action against the defendants for infringement of its trade mark,” the judgment observed.
The Bench also rejected the appellant’s reliance on additional invoices for 2017 and 2018, observing that documents covering only two years would not establish sufficiently long use of the mark or demonstrate acquired distinctiveness and public reputation.
The court further emphasised that the scope of appellate interference in matters concerning interim injunctions was limited and that an appellate court could interfere only when the trial court had acted arbitrarily, contrary to law or had returned perverse or untenable findings.
Finding no such grounds in the present case, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the Commercial Court’s decision.
Advocate Danish Majeed appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Shariq J Reyaz represented the respondents.
The judgment was reserved on September 11, 2026, and pronounced on November 6, 2026.
