Updates

Some legal victories arrive not with fanfare but with a quiet sense of rightness restored. Lahoti Advocates recent win before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upholding an injunction in favour of the registered trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ felt exactly like that.

When the matter first came to us in 2016, the brief was simple in statement but complex in execution: protect a mark with deep consumer recognition from being siphoned by confusingly similar use. The client was the registered proprietor of SACHAMOTI. That single fact would ultimately shape the legal landscape but only if we could persuade the Court to see the case through the lens the Trade Marks Act requires. We prepared for a long haul, scanning through the records that could carry weight at every stage: before the Single Judge, on appeal, and, if needed, beyond.

The first inflection point came before the Single Judge. Trademark disputes at the interim stage are often decided on clarity of right and balance of convenience; ambiguity helps the imitator. We leaned into the statutory scheme such as Sections 28, 29 and 31 while persuading the Court that registration is not a mere ornament; it is a prima facie proof, a legal signal that the proprietor’s right is real and deserves protection pending trial. The Ld. Single Court granted an injunction on 05.03.2024. The immediate turbulence settled; but we knew an appeal would follow.

It did. The Appellants sought to unspool the injunction thread by thread on facts, on surmises, and on extra-legal standards. Appeals from discretionary orders are battles of discipline. They are not re-trials; they are tests of whether the first court misdirected itself in principle. We anchored our response in that discipline, drawing on the appellate restraint articulated in Wander v. Antox: an appeal is not an invitation to substitute discretion; it is a narrow doorway, entered only when the first court has clearly erred. Nothing in the record warranted such interference. The legal footing was firm; the equities favoured the registered proprietor; the risk of consumer confusion was real, not rhetorical.

On October 13, 2025, the Division Bench delivered the kind of order that restores confidence in first principles. The appeals were dismissed. The Single Judge’s injunction stood where it belonged firmly in place to the registered proprietor Mr. Rajkumar Sabu (Shiv Trading Company). With that, the interim dust finally settled. The case now returns to the Hon’ble Single Judge, where the merits will be tested in full. But the market, and the consumers who rely on distinct brands, remain protected in the meantime.

For our client, this wasn’t just a legal contest; it was about safeguarding reputation built over decades and the trust embedded in a single word: SACHAMOTI. For us, it was about burning midnight oil in carefully working  and assembling the documentary backbone, sharpening the legal edge, and staying patient when patience is the winning strategy.

The team of Lahoti Advocates were led by Mr. Chander Lall, Senior Advocate, whose courtroom clarity set the tone for the case. Our team (Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, Ms. Vindhya Mehra Mehra and Ms. Samridhi Bhatt) handled the trenches facts, filings, and fine print so that the advocacy at the lectern could be concise, credible, and compelling.

What should brand owners take from this? Register early. Keep your records clean. Act promptly when confusion looms. And remember that interim stages aren’t rehearsals; they are often where the real-world protection is won or lost. The law provides the tools that is injunctions, presumptions attached to registration, and appellate restraint, to keep the playing field fair. Used with care, they work.

The battle is far from over. As the suit moves forward, we remain focused on the endgame: translating interim protection into a final decree that honours consumer recognition and preserves the distinctiveness that SACHAMOTI has earned. For now, the mark stays where the law says it belongs under the protection of a well-reasoned injunction, affirmed on appeal.