Maa Veshno Food Products Private Limited through one of its Director Raju Agarwal vs Khushboo Cool Products Private Limited — 1/2023
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section O39,R1&2,151. Status: Hearing. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026 Date Not Updated.
Civil Suit
CNR: UPAG190001582023
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026 Date Not Updated
Filing Number
159/2023
Filing Date
28-02-2023
Registration No
1/2023
Registration Date
28-02-2023
Court
Commercial Court Agra
Judge
1-Commercial Court No. 01
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Maa Veshno Food Products Private Limited through one of its Director Raju Agarwal
Adv. Ashok Kumar Goyal and others
Respondent(s)
Khushboo Cool Products Private Limited
Himatbhai Gordhanbhai Pokia Proprietor of M/s Gokul Industries
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Commercial Court No. 01
Hearing
Hearing
Arguments
F. O.
Exp.Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 27-02-2026 | Hearing |
| 16-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 31-01-2026 | F. O. |
| 19-01-2026 | Exp.Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case 1/2023: Maa Veshno Food Products Pvt Ltd v. Khushboo Cool Products Pvt Ltd Order Date: 15.07.2025 | Court: Commercial Court No. 1, Agra Outcome: Defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 (CPC) to dismiss the plaint has been REJECTED. The court found that a valid cause of action exists for trademark infringement and passing off claims. The suit is MAINTAINABLE and not barred by Section 28(3) of the Trademark Act 1999. The court clarified that when two different registered proprietors hold similar or identical trademarks, the infringement suit can proceed against another registered proprietor. The court also held the court has territorial jurisdiction and the case will proceed to hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case 1/2023: Maa Veshno Food Products Pvt Ltd v. Khushboo Cool Products Pvt Ltd Order Date: 15.07.2025 | Court: Commercial Court No. 1, Agra Outcome: Defendant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 (CPC) to dismiss the plaint has been REJECTED. The court found that a valid cause of action exists for trademark infringement and passing off claims. The suit is MAINTAINABLE and not barred by Section 28(3) of the Trademark Act 1999. The court clarified that when two different registered proprietors hold similar or identical trademarks, the infringement suit can proceed against another registered proprietor. The court also held the court has territorial jurisdiction and the case will proceed to hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts