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
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
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
ISSUES
ISSUES
ISSUES
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
ORDER ON INJUCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 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
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.
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
Explore other courts