“Tiger” Mark Common In Trade, Not Trademarkable: Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Farm Equipment Maker
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to an agricultural equipment maker that sought to stop a rival from using the word “Tiger” as part of its brand name for farm implements.
In a judgment delivered on January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common to the trade and that no case of deceptive similarity was made out at the interim stage.
The court observed, “As 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' are found to be generic and common to the trade, the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership over the part of the Impugned Mark containing the Marks 'TIGER' and 'BRAND' as a part of them.”
Mahaveer Udyog told the court that it has been using the mark “TIGER GOLD BRAND” since 2010 and that the trademark was registered in 2023. It claimed to have built significant goodwill among farmers and dealers over the years. It alleged that Atulya Discs deliberately copied its mark by replacing the word “Gold” with “Premium” while retaining the words “Tiger” and “Brand,” along with a tiger device, which was likely to confuse customers and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Atulya Discs, on the other hand, argued that the words “TIGER” and “BRAND” are widely used in the agricultural sector and cannot be monopolised by any single business. It submitted that the rival marks must be compared as a whole and that differences in layout, colour scheme and overall presentation were sufficient to distinguish the two brands.
After examining the competing marks, the Court agreed with Atulya Discs and held that “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic expressions incapable of exclusive ownership. The Court noted that the trademark registration relied upon by Mahaveer Udyog was for a device mark as a whole and did not grant exclusive rights over individual words forming part of it.
The court added, “'TIGER' is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark 'TIGER' has acquired secondary meaning. The Mark 'TIGER' does not have an exclusive character and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim exclusive right over the same.”
Applying the anti-dissection rule and assessing the marks as a whole, the Court held that “TIGER GOLD BRAND” and “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” are not deceptively similar. It observed that differences in wording, overall get-up and visual appearance were sufficient to avoid consumer confusion.
On the issue of passing off, the court found that Mahaveer Udyog had failed to establish goodwill and that, prima facie, no likelihood of confusion was made out.
Consequently, the court dismissed the interim injunction plea, allowing Atulya Discs to continue using the “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” mark during the pendency of the suit.
Case Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor Of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (DEL) 35
Case Number: CS(COMM) 412/2025
For Plaintiffs: Advocates R.P. Yadav and Riju Mani Talukdar
For Defendants: Advocates Amit George, Manish Gandhi, Vaibhav Gandhi, Muskan Gandhi, Dushyant Kishan Kaul and Rupam Jha for D-1 to D-3; Advocates Rohini Sharma and Chanchal Sharma for D-5