The judgment was delivered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., bearing CS(COMM) 216/2024 along with I.A. No. 5557/2024, by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia on 31 January 2026. The dispute concerned alleged trademark infringement and passing off in relation to gas stoves and kitchen appliances, wherein the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark “SUNFLARE” or any other deceptively similar mark to the Plaintiff’s “SUNFLAME”.

Issue of Law

The Court considered whether the Defendants’ use of the mark “SUNFLARE” for gas stoves and allied kitchen appliances was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s “SUNFLAME” mark so as to warrant interim injunctive relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, on a prima facie assessment of infringement and passing off. 

Detailed Background and Facts

The Plaintiff’s Case and Brand History

The Plaintiff asserted continuous use of the “SUNFLAME” mark since 1980 for gas stoves, tracing its origin to a predecessor partnership firm, and pleaded subsequent corporate continuity.   The Plaintiff relied on its trademark registrations across multiple classes and its long-standing market presence to show distinctiveness, goodwill, and reputation. 

Commercial Footprint and Market Recognition

The Plaintiff placed turnover and promotional expenditure material on record to support goodwill, including FY 2022–23 sales figures and prior years’ promotional spends. 

Defendants’ Adoption and Use

The Defendants pleaded bona fide adoption and continuous use since 2017, stating that the impugned mark was registered in Class 11 and supported by invoices and advertising spend. 

Submissions (Core Contention Lines)

Plaintiff’s Core Theory of Infringement and Confusion

The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants’ mark was designed to ride on the Plaintiff’s goodwill, and that confusion would arise in the marketplace given the close similarity of marks and identical goods and trade channels.   The Court recorded that even “initial interest confusion”, meaning transient confusion at the preliminary stage before purchase, can satisfy deceptive similarity for infringement purposes. 

Defendants’ Core Defences

The Defendants raised, among other points, that the Plaintiff had taken inconsistent positions earlier in a reply to an examination report and therefore could not now claim deceptive similarity, invoking the principle against approbation and reprobation.   They also contended that the Plaintiff’s registrations were device-based and that the word mark position did not support the breadth of statutory exclusivity being asserted. 

Judgment Discussion (Reasoning and Findings)

Likelihood of Confusion and Statutory Infringement Lens

The Court held that confusion must be assessed from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection and accepted that the association-based confusion for identical goods can constitute infringement within Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.   The Court also stated that initial interest confusion, even if later dispelled at the point of purchase, remains actionable because the infringer’s objective may be achieved by diverting initial consumer attention. 

Deceptive Similarity and Market Reality

On comparison of the marks, the Court found that the Defendants replicated the essential features of the Plaintiff’s mark, and that the minor substitution of “M” with “R” (to move from “SUNFLAME” to “SUNFLARE”) did not render the marks dissimilar, particularly for mass-market kitchen products purchased by consumers who may not scrutinise spelling. 

“Triple Identity” Finding

The Court treated the dispute as a “triple identity” situation, noting identity or near-identity of marks, identical product category, and overlapping consumer base and trade channels, reinforcing the case for interim protection to the prior user. 

Passing Off and Equitable Balance

The Court held that the Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of passing off by demonstrating goodwill, likelihood of confusion, and probable reputational harm, and found balance of convenience and irreparable prejudice in the Plaintiff’s favour. 

Operative Directions

Interim Injunction Granted

The Defendants and all persons acting for them were restrained from using, soliciting, or advertising the impugned mark “SUNFLARE” (and any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s “SUNFLAME” mark) in relation to gas stoves and other kitchen appliances, including on the internet and e-commerce platforms. 

Application Disposed; Further Listing

The injunction application was allowed and disposed of, and the suit was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 27.03.2026 for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of documents.

Access the official judgment here 

Court

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 

Case Title

Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. v. Kitchenopedia Appliances P. Ltd. & Anr. 

Case Number

CS(COMM) 216/2024; I.A. No. 5557/2024   

Presiding Judge

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia 

Judgment On

31 January 2026