SHREE GANESH NASTA CENTRE vs VAGHASIYA KALPESHBHAI LALJIBHAI Advocate - C P BUDDHADEV — 22/2025

Case under Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134,135,. Status: ISSUES. Next hearing: 01st May 2026.

COMM TMCS - COMMERCIAL TRADEMARK CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJSR010109262025

ISSUES

Next Hearing

01st May 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

22/2025

Filing Date

30-08-2025

Registration No

22/2025

Registration Date

30-08-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT

Judge

3-8th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

Acts & Sections

TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Section 134,135,

Petitioner(s)

SHREE GANESH NASTA CENTRE

Adv. H N JOSHI, J B CHHOTALA

HARISHBHAI TAILOR

SUNNYBHAI TAILOR

Respondent(s)

VAGHASIYA KALPESHBHAI LALJIBHAI Advocate - C P BUDDHADEV

Hearing History

Judge: 3-8th ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

02-04-2026

ISSUES

07-03-2026

ISSUES

24-02-2026

ISSUES

20-02-2026

ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION

31-01-2026

ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION

Interim Orders

24-02-2026
ORDER

Summary The Commercial Court (Surat) rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a trademark/passing-off case (TMSC No-22/2025). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, noting that while both parties use similar marks ("SHREE GANESH LIVE ALOOPURI" vs. "GANESH LIVE ALOOPURI AND RASAVALA KHAMAN"), there is no monopoly over the common word "Ganesh," and the question of prior user must be determined at trial. The application was dismissed with costs to follow the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Commercial Court (Surat) rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a trademark/passing-off case (TMSC No-22/2025). The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against the defendant, noting that while both parties use similar marks ("SHREE GANESH LIVE ALOOPURI" vs. "GANESH LIVE ALOOPURI AND RASAVALA KHAMAN"), there is no monopoly over the common word "Ganesh," and the question of prior user must be determined at trial. The application was dismissed with costs to follow the main suit. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case