Case Law
Hindustan Pencils v. India Stationery Products — "Nataraj" Trademark Case
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Citation & Court
Hindustan Pencils (P) Ltd. v. India Stationery Products Co. & Anr., AIR 1990 Delhi 19, decided 23 January 1989.
Need help with this?
Filing for your own brand? See our trademark registration service: search, class selection and Form TM-A filing, handled for you. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
The Dispute
Hindustan Pencils had adopted the mark "Nataraj," together with a dancing-Nataraj device, in 1961 and registered it for pencils and stationery goods. When it discovered India Stationery Products using the same "Nataraj" name on pins — but sought an injunction only after a significant delay from when it first became aware of that use — the question of whether that delay should defeat interim relief came squarely before the Court.
What the Court Held
The Delhi High Court (B.N. Kirpal, J.) granted the interim injunction and restrained the defendants from using the mark NATARAJ. The defendants' main answer was delay: the plaintiff had known of their use for years before suing. The Court rejected it, and in doing so set out principles that are still cited on delay and acquiescence.
Mere delay is not a defence. In the Court's words, “mere delay, without anything more, cannot by itself be regarded as a good defense” to an injunction against infringement.
Fraudulent adoption defeats any delay argument. Where the defendant acts fraudulently, knowing it is violating the plaintiff's rights, the injunction is not refused even if there has been inordinate delay. The Court found the defendants' conduct here to be clearly fraudulent, pointing among other things to the copying of the dancing-Nataraj device.
Even for an honest user, delay goes to damages, not the injunction. Where a defendant is an honest concurrent user, inordinate delay may defeat the claim for damages or an account of profits, but the Court held that the injunction itself should not be refused.
Acquiescence needs more than silence. It requires some positive conduct by the plaintiff encouraging the defendant to believe it could use the mark. Silence or inaction alone is not acquiescence, and on the facts the Court found none.
How to Use This in Your Reply
Cite this case for the plaintiff, against a defendant whose main answer to an injunction application is that you waited too long. It is one of the standard authorities, alongside the Supreme Court's later decision in Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, that delay alone does not defeat an injunction in an infringement case.
It also gives the defence its proper limits. A defendant relying on delay must show more than silence: genuine acquiescence, meaning conduct by the plaintiff that encouraged the defendant to build up its business, and an honest adoption in the first place. Where the copying looks deliberate, the delay argument is unlikely to help at all.
The safer course for any brand owner is still to act promptly. Delay may not cost you the injunction, but it can cost you damages and invite an argument about acquiescence that you would rather not have to answer. See infringement vs passing off for how these claims fit together.
Key takeaway: Mere delay does not defeat an injunction against infringement. Where adoption is fraudulent, even inordinate delay is no answer; for an honest user, delay may cost the plaintiff damages but not the injunction. Acquiescence requires positive encouragement, not mere silence.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.