ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. This appeal filed under the provisions of Order XLIII Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is arising out of the judgment and order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Commercial Court in rejecting the applications Exh. 6 and 7, seeking ad-interim injunction against the respondents, namely the defendants, in the Commercial Trademark Civil Suit No. 7 of 2025. The interim relief sought by the appellant in the injunction applications Exh. 6 and 7 filed before the trial court was to restrain the defendants immediately from promoting, listing or selling any tickets, passes, merchandise or access to events using the impugned trademarks “Safedishq”, “SafedParindey”, “SafedPoshak”, or any deceptively similar expression, whether through online platforms or offline channels, pending the final disposal of the suit. 2. At the outset, we may record that there is some delay in uploading the reasons of the order dated 19.09.2025 of dismissal of the present appeal in the open court, and we regret the same. 3. The suit for permanent injunction, passing off, the damages and another reliefs under the Trademarks Act, 1999, Common law of torts and Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has been filed by the appellant Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi claiming to be the proprietor of ‘”the Sheri Affair” having its registered office at Indraprasth Apartment, 23, Brahman Mitra Mandal Society, Near Parimal Garden, Ahmedabad. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff is rightful owner and prior user of the trademarks “Safedishq”, “SafedParindey”, “SafedPoshak”, collectively referred to as ‘the said trademarks’ or the plaintiff’s marks’’. The plaintiff has been actively engaged in organising premium and culturally themed Garba events in Ahmedabad under the banner of “the Sheri Affair’’ since the year 2022. The plaintiff has continuously adopted, promoted and used these trademarks in connection with her thematic Garba events, thereby establishing substantial market presence and brand value. The plaintiff demonstrating diligence regarding intellectual property rights, has duly applied for the registration of the said trademarks before the Trade Mark Registry, Ahmedabad and the trade marks applications are pending. 4. The further contention in the plaint is that the plaintiff had successfully organised largescale Navratri events under the brand “the Sheri Affair” characterized by a distinctive “white theme”, which has established a highly identifiable and distinct event brand under the plaintiff’s aforementioned trademarks. 4. The further contention in the plaint is that the plaintiff had successfully organised largescale Navratri events under the brand “the Sheri Affair” characterized by a distinctive “white theme”, which has established a highly identifiable and distinct event brand under the plaintiff’s aforementioned trademarks. The plaintiff maintains a substantial and active presence across various social media platforms, whereby using the plaintiff’s official Instagram account, she regularly disseminate information and updates to followers, fans and the customer base regarding event specifics, including location etc.. The plaintiff has generated substantial revenue and sales directly attributable to the adoption and consistent use of its distinctive trademark, unique theme, specific colour scheme, over all get-up, and comprehensive event arrangement. 5. The plaintiff is prior user of the trademark alongwith the distinctive theme incorporating the specific colour scheme, get-up and arrangement, which is sought to be demonstrated with the copy of the tickets issued in the month of October, 2024. The contention is that the defendants with the mala fide intention and in bad faith adopted and commenced using the identical and/or deceptively similar trademarks, specifically “Safedishq” and “SafedParindey”. The defendants’ application for registration of the infringing trademark filed on 30th April, 2025 is demonstrably subsequent to the plaintiff’s established usage and prior filling. 6. The cause of action for filling the suit, as stated in the plaint, is that the plaintiff recently came to know that the defendants have commenced online and offline tickets sales for Navratri events using the infringing marks “Safedishq” and “SafedParindey” and other deceptively similar branding. These ticketing links, falsely invoking the plaintiff’s legacy, are being promoted through digital platforms and booking portals, including Instagram. The act of the defendants in using the similar trademarks is causing active deception among consumers who believe that they are buying the tickets to an event organised by the plaintiff. 7. The defendants, on the other hand, had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the claim of the plaintiff with the categorical assertion that the statement of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is proprietor of “the Sheri Affair” is without any iota of evidence. The plaintiff has wilfully suppressed various facts about the ownership of the alleged proprietary. 7. The defendants, on the other hand, had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the claim of the plaintiff with the categorical assertion that the statement of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is proprietor of “the Sheri Affair” is without any iota of evidence. The plaintiff has wilfully suppressed various facts about the ownership of the alleged proprietary. The plaint averments are false and wilful misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff and as the plaintiff, has not come with the clean hands and has filed documents to mislead the Court by wilful suppression of material facts, the suit is liable to the dismissed outrightly. 8. The trial court on going through the records noted that though the suit has been filed by Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi claiming to be the proprietor of ‘the Sheri Affair”, but she has not produced any document to establish the same. On the contrary, the document produced by the defendants vide Mark 24/6 reveals that the ownership and curation of the said “the Sheri Affair” is properly owned by “Loop Events & Entertainment”. The plaintiff is only a Co-Founder of the same. The plaintiff has applied for registration of the “SafedParindey” on 21.06.2025 showing Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi as a proprietor, but not as the owner of the mark. The defendants have already applied for registration of the trademark “SafedParendey” on 30.04.2025, i.e. prior to the application filed by the plaintiff. The Chief Executive Officer and Creative Head of “Sheri Affair” and also founder of Loop Events & Entertainment, who is the necessary and proper party in the suit proceedings, has not been impleaded. 9. The trial court further records that even the documents filed by the plaintiff at Annexure-E, the bank statement for the period of 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2025 (Mark 4/5) is of one “M/s. Loop Events & Entertainment”, which is shown as the account holder therein and the E-mail ID mentioned therein is SAM.MODI@YAHOO.COM. It was, thus, noted by the trial court that from the perusal of the documents on record, it can be seen that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the details of the sale turn over and promotional expenditures alleged to be that of the plaintiff, were of the proprietorship “the Sheri Affair”. 10. It was, thus, noted by the trial court that from the perusal of the documents on record, it can be seen that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the details of the sale turn over and promotional expenditures alleged to be that of the plaintiff, were of the proprietorship “the Sheri Affair”. 10. It was, thus, held by the trial court that in order to maintain the suit for infringement, it is sine qua non that the mark of the plaintiff must be a registered trademark. The suit for infringement is not maintainable qua an unregistered trademark. For the plea of passing off, once the plaintiff has failed to prove being the prior user or even the user of the trademark, of which the infringement is alleged, no case of passing off can be found to be existing. 11. The above findings of the trial court is sought to be assailed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant with the aid of the document appended at page No. ‘266’ of the paper book to submit that the said document brought on record of the trial court itself established that “SafedParindey” was the trademark of the events organised on 04.10.2024 by the “Sheri Affair”, in collaboration with other partners such as “Loop Events & Entertainment”. The submission is that the plaintiff namely Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi is the creator of the concept of ‘white theme’ in Garba events and it being an admitted fact that Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi is the Co-Founder of Loop Events & Entertainment, an ad- interim injunction could not have been refused on the premise that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the infringing trademark was the creation or of ownerhisp of the plaintiff. The submission is that there is no reason to doubt the claim of the plaintiff for the documents brought on record, which clearly establish that the device trade mark “Sheri Affair” was used in the Garba events in the year 2024. 12. The contention is that the plaintiff is organising the Garba events since 2022 and trademark application for registration of device mark “Sheri Affair” at page No. ‘232’ of the paper book further show that the name of the proprietor therein has been shown as Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi. 12. The contention is that the plaintiff is organising the Garba events since 2022 and trademark application for registration of device mark “Sheri Affair” at page No. ‘232’ of the paper book further show that the name of the proprietor therein has been shown as Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi. The application was moved on 13.08.2024 to seek registration of the device mark and, thus, is prior to the application allegedly moved by the defendants. The contention is that from all angles, it is to be held that the trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application for grant of interim injunction. 13. Taking note of the above, we may record that from the material brought on record at page No. ‘205’ of the paper book, it is evident that Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi has been shown as Co- Founder of Loop Events & Entertainment and Mr. Sam Modi is the CEO and the Creative Head of “Sheri Affair” and also the founder of Loop Events & Entertainment. 14. The affidavit in support of the trademark application for prior use filed by the plaintiff Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi is at page No. ‘219’ of the paper book. A perusal thereof indicates that the said affidavit is dated 20.06.2025 wherein it is stated that the trademark application for trademark “SafedParindey” has been filed in the name of Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi having registered address of Ahmedabad at Indraprasth Apartment, 23, Brahman Mitra Mandal Society, Near Parimal Garden. The assertions are that Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi having its principal business at the aforesaid address state that she in the capacity of an individual attending the day-to-day business of her concern and is engaged in the business of entertainment, or providing recreation of individuals or group. The concern of Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi has adopted the trademark “SafedParindey” and it has acquired a very good reputation and demand in the Indian market. The aforesaid trademark adopted by her concern is very well known because of its concurrent and long use. However, pertinent is to note that there is no whisper in the affidavit about the proprietorship in the name of “Sheri Affair”. By the application dated 13.08.2024, the trademark is applied for “SHERI AFFAIR AN OLD STYLE EXPERIENCE”, for the device mark “Sheri Affair”, the name of the proprietor Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, a single firm. However, pertinent is to note that there is no whisper in the affidavit about the proprietorship in the name of “Sheri Affair”. By the application dated 13.08.2024, the trademark is applied for “SHERI AFFAIR AN OLD STYLE EXPERIENCE”, for the device mark “Sheri Affair”, the name of the proprietor Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, a single firm. All the averments in the affidavit about the concern of Applicant Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, thus, cannot be related to the proprietorship “The Sheri Affair” alleged to be owned by her, in absence of a clear statement in that regard. 15. Further, from the documents appended at page No. ‘266’ of the paper book, heavily relied by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant herein, it may be noted that though terms “Sheri Affair” and “LooP Events & Entertainment” have been mentioned therein, but the name of Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi cannot be found. From none of the documents appended with the record of the present appeal, it could be demonstrated by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant Ms. Niti Mohan Pancholi is the prior user of the trademarks “Safedishq”, “SafedParindey” and “SafedPoshak”, for infringement of which the injunction was sought. It could not be shown that the adoption of trademark “SafedParindey” by the defendants is dishonest adoption, which would result in passing off, of the goodwill of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seems to have been associated with the Loop Events & Entertainment, when the event of the year 2024 was organised in the name of “Sheri Affair”, and “SafedParindey”, but there is nothing on record which establishes that the plaintiff being the proprietor of “Sheri Affair” had invested and earned out of the said event held on 04.10.2024 in the name of “Sheri Affair” and “SafedParindey”, where Loop Events & Entertainment was one of the partners. 16. 16. The fact that the plaintiff has been associated with the Loop Events & Entertainment being its co-founders, which allegedly had used “SafedParindey” for Garba events in the year 2024, would not be sufficient to grant injunction to the plaintiff, inasmuch as, the question as to whether the plaintiff is the prior user of the trademarks “Safedishq”, “SafedParindey”, “SafedPoshak” being the proprietor of “the Sheri Affair” since the year 2022, as stated in the plaint, is a matter to be proved by the plaintiff by the production of evidence before the trial court. No prima facie case is made out for grant of injunction 17. From the discussions made in the order impugned by the trial court and the material on record before us, we do not find any error in the order of rejection of the application for injunction, with the opinion of the trial court that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and that she will suffer irreparable loss, so as to grant the ad-interim injunction in her favour. 18. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. It is, however, clarified that the observations hereinabove are the discussion to examine the case of the plaintiff seeking injunction and will have no bearing on the merits of the the pending suit proceedings or any other proceedings before the Trade Mark Registry or any other Court of law. The observations herein are confined to the inquiry made in the present appeal only and the Court or the authority concerned shall have to deal with the matters before them independently without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.