Westend Green’s trademark dispute reaches SC; court issues notice

The Supreme Court has issued notice on petitions filed by Westend Green Farms Society challenging the rejection of its trademark infringement suits, bringing the long-standing dispute over the use of its registered name under judicial scrutiny.

The Society has approached the top court against a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated December 17, 2025, which upheld the trial court’s decision to reject its suits at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground of lack of cause of action.

Westend Green Farms Society, a premium farmhouse community, has stated that it has been in existence since 1993 and is duly registered with the Registrar of Societies. It also holds a valid trademark registration for “Westend Greens” in Class 45, both as a word mark and device mark. According to the Society, the name has acquired considerable goodwill and a distinct identity over the years.

The dispute traces back to 2021, when certain individuals allegedly began using the “Westend Green” name despite being residents of a separate society, Amaltas Avenue. The Society has claimed that such unauthorised use amounts to infringement of its registered trademark and passing off, potentially misleading the public and causing damage to its reputation.

Before the Supreme Court, a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, while hearing the matter on April 20, 2026, recorded that it had heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and issued notice to the respondents and directed that the matter be tagged with connected petitions for comprehensive adjudication.

In a related petition arising out of similar facts, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, on April 6, 2026, had also issued notice and ordered tagging with another connected Special Leave Petition, indicating that multiple proceedings involving the same controversy are pending consideration before the Court.

The petitioner Society is represented by Sumit Gehlot, Advocate, along with T.S. Thakran and Manju Gehlot, Advocates, instructed by Mukesh Kumar, Advocate-on-Record.
The Society, through Advocate Sumit Gehlot, has argued that both the trial court and the High Court adopted an erroneous approach in rejecting the suits at the preliminary stage. It has also contended that the plaints clearly disclose a cause of action involving trademark infringement and passing off, which necessarily require detailed examination of facts and evidence during trial and cannot be dismissed summarily.

The Supreme Court’s issuance of notice now paves the way for a detailed hearing in the matter, where the Court will examine the legality of the impugned orders as well as the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the context of intellectual property disputes.