Chuski Case

The fame in the name: Bhupesh Goyal v/s State of Chattisgarh & Ors.


The owners of ‘Jain Chuski Chai’, one of the respondents in the present suit, had initially filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging copyright and trademark infringement. Now, the petitioners (owner of ‘Goyal Chuski Chai’) have filed the present writ petition (criminal) challenging the complaint filed by ‘Jain Chuski Chai’ (respondent no. 3) before the police station, Durg, on 14.09.2018. Following this, the police filed a charge sheet before the CJM, Durg, on 30.11.2018. The petitioners claimed the charges to be false and stated that they had already filed for rectification with the Trademarks Registrar on 10.09.2018; therefore, they have not committed any violation there. 

  • False imputation of petitioner no. 1– The petitioners claimed that being a resident of a different place and involved in some other business, he was ‘falsely roped in.’
  • The resemblance of wrappers– The petitioners claimed that the wrappers of ‘Jain Chuski’ and ‘Goyal Chuski’ were undeniably different, and the charges were utterly false.
  • Non-compliance with the notice– The petitioners failed to comply with the notice, which directed them to produce any valid documents to primarily disregard the charges against them.
  • Registration of petitioners’ trademark- Another issue was whether the petitioners had got their alleged trademark ‘Goyal Chuski’ registered because they couldn’t provide any substantial proof of their claim and yet contended to have been accused falsely.
  • Usage of the word ‘Chuski’- An issue arose when the petitioners cited a case[1] to claim that the use of the word ‘Chuski’ was widespread in purposes of this business. Therefore, there wasn’t any basis for the accusations.


The respondent prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition as the petitioners failed to present any evidence submitted that could lead to the quashing of the F.I.R. and the charges filed against them. They were rather misleading the court, claiming to have registered ‘H.S.G. Yashika Goyal Chuski Chai’ as their trademark. Further, they pointed out that the mark ‘Goyal Chuski Chai’ has not been granted registration under the Trademark/ Copyright Act. 

The petitioners again failed to produce supporting documents for their claims and contended that the word ‘Chuski’ was common parlance. To the contention of common parlance, the court provided that provisions under the Copyright or Trade Marks Act would override any such claim, thereby vacating the order earlier passed in favor of the petitioners. The respondent subsequently highlighted the wrongful nature of using the word ‘Chuski’ and the deception caused in the court’s eyes due to such acts of the petitioners.


Owing to the endless debate and discussion over the righteousness of the claims put forward by both parties and the dubiety caused in the absence of any viable proof shown by the petitioners, it was apparent that prima facie, the offense in question was committed by the petitioners. Thus, the present writ petition was dismissed. Further, the High Court directed the trial court to determine the authenticity of the claims above.

[1] J.R Kapoor vs. Micronlx India SC (1994) 8 28

Author: Taru Singhal, student of Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi

Disclaimer: This brief is intended to provide general guidance to the subject matter. It does not contain legal advice. For any specific advice/corrections, write to [email protected]


Related Posts