Shoranur Metal Industries LLP & Another Vs. The Metal Industries Limited & Another
Facts
The story of this case begins with a company called The Metal Industries Limited, which is owned by the Government of Kerala. This company has been around for about 94 years, starting way back, and its main office is in Shoranur. They make tools for farming, such as sickles, spades, shovels, pickaxes, axes, saws, cutleries, and mammatties. Their products are sold under the brand name Tusker, which comes with a special emblem. Over the years, this company built a good name for itself, and people know it well, especially in the area. They even registered their company name, Metal Industries, as a trade mark under the law that protects such names, specifically Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Because it is based in Shoranur, people often call it Shoranur Metal Industries informally.
A second party is Shoranur Metal Industries LLP, a newer firm started in 2019, also in the same area, about three kilometres away. This firm is run by Krishnakumar as the main partner, and they also make iron and steel tools for farming, similar to what the older company does. Their products go by the brand name K.Kumar Tools. In 2020, the older company noticed that the new firm’s name was causing mix-ups among people. Customers and traders started thinking the new firm was part of or the same as the old one because both used “Metal Industries” in their names. The old company sent a legal notice asking the new firm to stop using that name, but the new firm replied saying they were not doing anything wrong. The old company then filed a lawsuit asking for a court order to stop the new firm from using “Metal Industries” in their name, to remove it from all papers and advertisements, and for damages of about Rs. 1,00,000, alleging violations of Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act.
Defendant’s Contentions
The new firm argued that their business was not exactly the same. They said their tools are made specially to customers’ specifications, unlike the older company’s standard products. They maintained that words like “Metal Industries” are common descriptive words for the nature of the business, and many companies across India use similar names, so no single entity can own those words exclusively. They also said the old company is not officially known as Shoranur Metal Industries and that there was no real confusion or harm.
Procedural Details
The lawsuit began as Original Suit No. 1 of 2023 in the District Court at Palakkad. The Metal Industries Limited was the plaintiff, and Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and its partner were the defendants. The District Court framed six main issues to decide, including whether there was copying of the name, whether it caused confusion, and whether the plaintiff deserved protection.
Both sides presented evidence. The older company produced a witness (Pw1) and documents such as registration papers (Exts. A1 to A15). The new firm produced a witness (Dw1) and documents (Exts. B1 to B4). After hearing everything, the District Court sided with the older company and issued a permanent injunction restraining the new firm from using “Metal Industries” in their business name and ordering removal of the name from all communications, advertisements, newspapers, and social media. The new firm appealed to the High Court of Kerala.
The appeal was filed as Regular First Appeal No. 287 of 2024. The High Court heard arguments from Harikumar G. for the appellants and Saji Varghese T.G. for the respondents. The case was heard on 26 August 2025, and judgment was delivered on 18 September 2025. The High Court focused on three main questions: (1) Did the new firm copy the registered name? (2) Could the new firm raise a lawful defence? and (3) Was there passing off?
Dispute
The core dispute was whether the new firm could use the name “Shoranur Metal Industries” when the older company had registered “Metal Industries” as a trade mark. The plaintiff claimed infringement and argued the defendant’s name was too similar, causing public confusion and implying a connection. The plaintiff sought an order to restrain the defendant and to require a name change.
The defendant countered that “metal” and “industries” are ordinary descriptive words that indicate the kind of business. They argued that such common or descriptive words cannot be monopolised unless they acquire a distinct secondary meaning that exclusively identifies the proprietor. The defendants also pointed to differences in product brands — Tusker for the plaintiff and K.Kumar Tools for the defendant — and noted that “Metal Industries” is not used on the products themselves.
The plaintiff also relied on passing off principles, alleging that even if direct infringement were not established, the defendant’s use could mislead the public into thinking the defendant’s goods originated from the plaintiff. The defendant denied any evidence of damage or deception.
Detailed Reasoning
The judge began by explaining trade mark law: a trade mark identifies the origin of goods and is protected to prevent confusion. The plaintiff’s registration of “Metal Industries” engages Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits use of a similar mark by another for similar goods. However, Section 30(2)(a) is an exception: use of a term that merely describes the kind, quality, or other characteristics of goods is not infringement. The defendants relied on this exception, arguing that “metal” and “industries” are descriptive or generic.
The judge examined precedent. In Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel, (2006) 8 SCC 726, the Supreme Court observed that a mark connects goods to a source and that exclusive rights follow registration, but also emphasised the risk of deception where two parties use similar marks. The judge noted, however, that the plaintiff here did not prove that “Metal Industries” had acquired an exclusive secondary meaning beyond its descriptive character.
The judge also relied on Pornsricharoenpun Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (MANU/DE/4515/2022), where the Delhi High Court held that courts can examine distinctiveness and validity of a registered mark at an early stage if the defence raises valid points. Descriptive marks must acquire a secondary meaning to be enforceable; otherwise, common words cannot be monopolised. Applying that reasoning, the judge found “Metal Industries” descriptive and open to challenge under Sections 30 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act.
The judge referenced other authorities emphasising that ordinary English words used in trade cannot be exclusively appropriated: Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani, AIR 2010 SC 3221 (noting the generic nature of “skyline”); Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7841 (observing that registration of ordinary words implies acceptance that others may use similar combinations); and Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences and Events Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5610 (holding that generic or descriptive words do not, by themselves, gain distinctiveness).
The plaintiff cited T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 85, where the court protected a descriptive term that had acquired a secondary meaning. The judge contrasted that with the present facts and found no evidence that “Metal Industries” had acquired such a secondary meaning tied exclusively to the plaintiff.
On passing off, the judge explained the classical trinity: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Several authorities were considered, including Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2001 SC 1952 (factors for deceptive similarity), and local authorities emphasising the need to prove reputation and likely deception. The judge held that there was no adequate evidence of damage or likely deception here. The distinct brands (Tusker and K.Kumar Tools), absence of the name on products, and lack of proof of a secondary meaning weighed against the plaintiff.
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the District Court’s orders. The injunction against the new firm was vacated, the appellants were permitted to continue using the name Shoranur Metal Industries, and the original suit was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Shoranur Metal Industries LLP & Another Vs. The Metal Industries Limited & Another
Order Date: 18th September 2025
Case Number: RFA No. 287 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:69913
Name of Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Name of Hon’ble Judge: The Honourable Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
