UPL Limited Vs Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association

The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling delivered by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, has set aside the rejection of a patent application for a herbicidal composition filed by UPL Limited. The court found serious procedural irregularities in the manner in which the Controller of Patents handled the pre-grant opposition and the examination process concurrently, without affording separate hearings as contemplated under the Patents Act, 1970. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a different Controller, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory separation between examination proceedings and pre-grant opposition proceedings, along with strict compliance with principles of natural justice.

**Introduction**  

This judgment addresses a critical aspect of Indian patent prosecution involving the interplay between the examination of patent applications under Sections 14 and 15 of the Patents Act, 1970, and pre-grant oppositions filed under Section 25(1). The court examined whether these distinct statutory stages can be merged into a single composite order without separate hearings, particularly when new prior art documents are introduced during opposition that were not part of the First Examination Report (FER). The decision reinforces the independent nature of these proceedings, the mandatory requirement of reasoned orders with independent application of mind, and the limited participatory role of pre-grant opponents in the examination stage. It draws heavily on precedents emphasizing procedural fairness in quasi-judicial patent decisions and highlights that procedural lapses vitiating natural justice warrant remand, even in technical matters.

**Factual Background**  

UPL Limited filed Patent Application No. 201831011137 on March 26, 2018, claiming a herbicidal combination for controlling undesirable plants (weeds). The invention involved a synergistic composition comprising a Triazolone herbicide, a Photosystem II inhibitor herbicide, and either an ALS inhibitor (from Imidazolinone class) or a bleacher herbicide. The applicant asserted that the combination exhibited unexpected synergistic weed control, superior to individual components. The application was published on September 27, 2019. A First Examination Report was issued on January 24, 2020, raising objections including lack of novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency. In response, filed on July 22, 2020, the applicant amended Claim 1 by deleting the compound amicarbazone to overcome novelty objections and requested a hearing under Section 14. A pre-grant opposition was filed by Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association (respondent no.1) on September 30, 2020, under Section 25(1), alleging lack of novelty (Section 25(1)(b)), lack of inventive step (Section 25(1)(e)), and the invention being a mere admixture not qualifying as an invention under Section 3(e). The opposition introduced additional prior arts (D3 to D5) not cited in the FER. Hearings and written submissions followed, culminating in a composite impugned order dated April 27, 2023, rejecting the application.

**Procedural Background**  

The applicant challenged the impugned order before the Calcutta High Court in IPDPTA No.116 of 2023. The primary grievance centered on procedural violations: no separate hearing was granted under Section 14 despite the explicit request in the FER reply; the Controller passed a single composite order disposing of both examination and opposition proceedings without delineating portions attributable to each; new prior arts introduced in opposition were considered without adequate opportunity to respond; the impugned order mechanically reproduced the opponent's submissions without independent reasoning or analysis of the applicant's data and arguments; and one cited prior art (D4) was untraceable and not provided despite requests. The Controller defended the consolidation as permissible, while the opponent supported the rejection on substantive grounds including lack of synergy proof and admixture nature.

**Reasoning and Decision of Court**  

The court held that examination under Sections 14-15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) constitute distinct, independent stages under the statutory scheme. The opponent has no right of audience or participation in the examination proceeding, which remains confined between the applicant and the Controller. Reliance was placed on Novartis AG vs Natco Pharma Limited (2024 SCC OnLine Del 152), which clarified that opposition aids but does not supplant or merge with independent examination; the opponent's hearing right under Rule 55(5) is limited to the representation grounds. The court found a serious procedural infirmity in the composite order without separate hearings, especially since objections and prior arts differed between FER and opposition. This denied natural justice, as the applicant could not adequately address new citations. The impugned order lacked reasons, mechanically adopted opponent's views without dealing with applicant's submissions, data, or case laws, violating the principle that reasons form the soul of quasi-judicial orders (S.N. Mukherjee vs Union of India). The court distinguished cases cited by the opponent on sufficiency, noting such grounds were not the basis of rejection and the opponent lacked locus in appeal on waived FER objections. Finding violation of natural justice and procedural impropriety going to the root, the court remanded the matter to a different Controller for fresh consideration after adequate hearings and consideration of all materials, without expressing views on merits. The remand was directed within twelve weeks from communication of the order.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

The judgment settles that pre-grant opposition and patent application examination are statutorily separate proceedings that cannot be merged into a single composite order without separate hearings under Sections 14 and 25(1) respectively, particularly when new prior arts or distinct objections arise in opposition. The Controller must pass reasoned orders with independent application of mind, and failure to provide requested hearings under Section 14, or to delineate statutory stages in composite orders, constitutes violation of natural justice warranting setting aside and remand. Pre-grant opponents have no participatory right in examination proceedings, and their role is confined to aiding holistic assessment without overriding the Controller's independent duty.

**Case Detail**  

- **Title**: UPL Limited Vs Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.  

- **Date of Order**: 05.02.2026  

- **Case Number**: IPDPTA No.116 of 2023  

- **Neutral Citation**: (Not available in public domain records as of current date; may be assigned subsequently by the Calcutta High Court registry)  

- **Name of Court**: High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side)  

- **Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

**Suggested Titles for the Article**  

1. Calcutta High Court Remands UPL Herbicidal Patent Rejection: Mandates Separate Hearings for Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition  

2. Procedural Fairness in Patent Prosecution: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Composite Rejection Order for Violating Natural Justice  

3. Separation of Examination and Pre-Grant Opposition Proceedings: Landmark Clarification by Calcutta High Court in UPL Limited Case  

4. Natural Justice Prevails: Calcutta HC Quashes Patent Refusal Due to Merged Proceedings and Lack of Reasons  

**Suggested Tags**  

Patent Law, Pre-Grant Opposition, Section 25(1) Patents Act, Section 14 & 15 Hearing, Natural Justice in Patent Proceedings, Composite Order Invalidity, Remand by Calcutta High Court, Herbicidal Composition Patent, UPL Limited Judgment, Procedural Irregularity in IPO, Inventive Step Rejection, Synergistic Herbicidal Combinations  

**Headnote**  

Calcutta High Court allows appeal against rejection of patent application for herbicidal combinations; sets aside impugned order for procedural infirmity in merging examination and pre-grant opposition without separate hearings, lack of reasoned independent application of mind, and violation of natural justice; matter remanded for fresh consideration by different Controller within 12 weeks, leaving merits open; reinforces statutory distinction between Sections 14-15 and 25(1) proceedings.

==========

**Brief Summary**  

UPL Limited's patent application for a herbicidal combination comprising Triazolone herbicide, Photosystem II inhibitor, and either ALS inhibitor (Imidazolinone) or bleacher herbicide was rejected by the Controller via a composite order dated 27 April 2023 on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and being a mere admixture under Section 3(e) following a pre-grant opposition by Haryana Pesticides Manufacturers Association. The applicant challenged the order before the Calcutta High Court alleging procedural violations including no separate hearing under Section 14 despite request, merger of examination and opposition proceedings into one order without delineation, consideration of new prior arts (D3–D5) introduced only in opposition without adequate opportunity, mechanical adoption of opponent's submissions without independent reasoning or analysis of applicant's data, and lack of reasons. The Court found serious procedural infirmity and violation of natural justice, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to a different Controller for fresh consideration after affording proper hearings and full consideration of materials, without expressing any view on merits, directing completion within twelve weeks.

**Points of Law Settled**  

- Examination proceedings under Sections 14–15 and pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) are distinct, independent stages that cannot be merged into a single composite order without separate hearings, particularly when new prior arts or different objections arise in opposition (Para 8–10, 14).  

- The pre-grant opponent has no right of audience or participation in the examination proceeding, which remains confined between the applicant and the Controller; the opponent's hearing right under Rule 55(5) is limited to the opposition representation (Para 8, 12, relying on Novartis AG v Natco Pharma Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 152).  

- Passing a composite order without delineating portions attributable to Section 14/15 and Section 25(1), and without granting a requested hearing under Section 14, constitutes serious procedural irregularity and violation of natural justice warranting setting aside of the order (Para 10, 14, relying on Gilead Pharmasset LLC v Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7014).  

- Quasi-judicial orders of the Controller must contain independent application of mind and adequate reasons; mechanical reproduction of opponent's submissions without dealing with applicant's evidence, data and arguments vitiates the order (Para 11, relying on S.N. Mukherjee v Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594).  

- In cases of clear violation of natural justice and procedural impropriety in patent matters, remand to the Controller (preferably different officer) for fresh adjudication is appropriate even in technical disputes (Para 14, relying on Klassic Wheels Pvt Ltd v Asst Controller of Patents, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 3387 and F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v NATCO Pharma Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6390).

**Case Details**  

- **Case Title**: UPL Limited v Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.  

- **Order Date**: 05 February 2026  

- **Case Number**: IPDPTA No. 116 of 2023  

- **Neutral Citation**: Not yet assigned / Not available in public domain  

- **Name of Court**: High Court at Calcutta (Intellectual Property Rights Division, Original Side)  

- **Name of Judge**: Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited Vs Mr. Nitish Kumar

**Summary**  

In this trademark and copyright infringement suit, Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited (plaintiff no.1) and its trademark-holding partnership firm (plaintiff no.2) alleged that defendants no.1 (Nitish Kumar) and no.2 (sole proprietorship "Hero Electric @Hero Motocrop") dishonestly adopted and used the plaintiffs' registered trademarks "HERO ELECTRIC", "HERO" formative marks (registered since 2008 in Class 12), logos, and copyrighted artistic/literary works to operate a rogue website www.evbikedealership.online and email contact@evbikedealership.online, falsely soliciting dealership enquiries, impersonating the plaintiffs, and fraudulently collecting money (evidenced by bank records showing over Rs.8.84 lakhs withdrawn from victims via forged documents). The suit sought permanent injunction, damages, costs, domain/email transfer, and other reliefs. Summons issued on 14.02.2022 with ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the impugned use, website takedown, and domain transfer; defendants never appeared despite service, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The Court, noting defendants' wilful default, uncontroverted pleadings/documents proving long-standing goodwill/reputation of "HERO ELECTRIC" (with revenues in crores, awards, extensive promotion), clear infringement/passing off/copyright violation, cheating of public via scam, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience favouring plaintiffs, decreed the suit ex-parte without formal evidence (as repetitive), granted permanent injunction, Rs.20 lakh aggravated/punitive damages, Rs.3 lakh costs, domain/email transfer to plaintiffs, and restraint on the impugned bank account.

**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case:**

- In IPD matters, where defendants remain ex-parte despite service and material on record sufficiently establishes plaintiffs' claim (including infringement, goodwill, fraud via rogue website), the Court can pass decree/summary judgment without directing formal ex-parte evidence, as it would be futile/repetitive — invoking Rule 27 Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and Rule 1 Chapter VII Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018; relying on Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja (2014:DHC:964) (reasoning paras as per judgment).

- Long, continuous, extensive use of a mark like "HERO ELECTRIC" since 2008, coupled with substantial sales (crores), promotion expenses, awards, and registrations, establishes acquired distinctiveness, reputation, goodwill, and entitlement to high protection against infringement/passing off — uncontroverted in ex-parte scenario.

- Rogue websites impersonating reputed brands to solicit fake dealerships/funds constitute trademark infringement (Sections 29, 30 Trade Marks Act, 1999), passing off, copyright violation (Section 51 Copyright Act, 1957), and cheating, warranting permanent injunction, punitive/aggravated damages (per matrix in Koninklijke Philips NV v. Amazestore CS(COMM) 737/2016), costs, and domain/email transfer to prevent continuing harm and public deception.

- In ex-parte IP infringement cases involving clear evidence of fraud (bank records, forged documents), irreparable injury to reputation/goodwill and balance of convenience tilt decisively in plaintiffs' favour, justifying decree without trial.

**Case Title:** Hero Electric Vehicles Private Limited Vs  Mr. Nitish Kumar  

**Order date:** 04 February 2026  

**Case Number:** CS(COMM) 104/2022  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:903  

**Name of court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Name of Judge:** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited Vs Batra Breweries and Distilleries

**Summary**  

In this trademark infringement suit, Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited (plaintiff) claimed exclusive rights over the well-known mark "Officer's Choice" (adopted since 1988, declared well-known in 2017, with massive sales and numerous prior successful litigations), alleging that defendants (including its own bottler Batra Breweries) were using the deceptively similar mark "Principal Choice" / "Principal Choice Premium Whisky" for whisky, with strikingly similar trade dress and label, leading to infringement and passing off. The suit was filed in Delhi High Court; interim injunction was granted in August 2023 restraining fresh production (allowing limited sale of existing stock), later confirmed till disposal; defendants appeared initially, obtained condonation of delay for written statement but never actually filed it, leading to ex-parte proceedings against them in October 2024. The plaintiff then sought summary judgment under Order XIIIA of the Commercial Courts Act. The Court, noting defendants' non-prosecution of their own TM application (abandoned), non-filing of defence despite opportunity, plaintiff's strong documentary evidence of long user, distinctiveness, secondary meaning, reputation, goodwill and prior injunctions in ~40 cases protecting the mark, held that no formal evidence was required in ex-parte scenario, balance of convenience and irreparable injury favoured plaintiff, and granted permanent injunction. Plaintiff voluntarily gave up claims for damages and costs.

**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case:**

- In intellectual property disputes before the IPD of Delhi High Court, summary judgment can be passed without a specific application on principles akin to Order XIIIA CPC as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Rule 27, Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (Para 18).

- Where defendant is ex-parte and material on record is sufficient to allow plaintiff's claim, the Court need not direct recording of ex-parte evidence as it would be repetitive of plaint contents and waste of judicial time — relying on Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Mutneja (Neutral Citation 2014:DHC:964) and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Gauhati Town Club (MANU/DE/0582/2013) (Paras 19 & 20).

- Long, continuous and uninterrupted use of a mark like "Officer's Choice" since 1988 for whisky renders it arbitrary (despite common words), distinctive and endowed with secondary meaning and substantial reputation/goodwill — fortified by earlier Division Bench view in FAO(OS) 368/2014 & 493/2014 dated 06.07.2015 (Paras 21 & 22).

- In ex-parte proceedings where summons were accepted but no written statement filed despite condonation of delay, Court can proceed to decree suit and grant permanent injunction if plaintiff's case is clearly made out on unrebutted pleadings and documents (Paras 16, 18 & 27).

**Case Title:** Allied Blenders and Distillers Limited Vs  Batra Breweries and Distilleries Private Limited & Ors.  

**Order date:** 04 February 2026  

**Case Number:** CS(COMM) 551/2023  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:904  

**Name of court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Name of Judge:** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Provivi, Inc. Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs

**Very brief and compact summary**

Provivi, Inc. filed Indian National Phase patent application no. 201817018490 (derived from PCT/US2016/062852) for a micro-organism producing insect pheromones and related compounds. After FER issuance on 20.05.2022 and reply filed on 19.07.2022, a hearing notice dated 03.05.2023 was allegedly issued but not received by the petitioner or its agent; no one appeared at the scheduled hearing on 19.05.2023. The Assistant Controller passed a non-speaking refusal order on 30.05.2023 under Section 15 mainly on lack of inventive step citing D3–D5, without discussing petitioner’s reply or analyzing how prior art renders the invention obvious. Petitioner became aware of refusal only later in July 2023, repeatedly followed up, and was informed in October 2024 that e-mails were delivered per office records. The High Court set aside the impugned order finding violation of natural justice (non-receipt of hearing notice and no fresh opportunity given) and lack of reasoned/speaking order (failure to consider reply to FER, absence of proper inventive step analysis per three-element test), and remanded the matter for de novo consideration by the Controller after issuing fresh hearing notice to a confirmed e-mail/address.

**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case**

- Passing a reasoned and speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem; the Controller must grant an opportunity of being heard and record reasons after considering the applicant’s reply/submissions on merits before refusing a patent application.  

  (Ref: Paras 8, 9, 11, 15; relying on Assistant Commissioner v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785)

- While rejecting a patent application for lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), the Controller must mandatorily consider and discuss three elements: (i) the invention disclosed in the prior art, (ii) the invention disclosed in the application under consideration, and (iii) the manner in which the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art; a bare conclusion without such analysis is impermissible.  

  (Ref: Paras 12–13, 15; relying on Agriboard International LLC vs Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940, paras 24–26)

- Even if office records show successful delivery of hearing notice, principles of natural justice require that the applicant be afforded at least one effective opportunity of hearing before refusal, particularly when non-appearance is disputed and no reasoned consideration of reply to FER is given.  

  (Ref: Paras 14–17)

**Case Details**  

**Case Title**: Provivi, Inc. Vs The Controller of Patents and Designs  

**Order Date**: 30 January 2026  

**Case Number**: W.P.(C)-IPD 43/2025 & CM 192/2025 & CM 193/2025  

**Neutral Citation**: (Not assigned / Not indicated in the order)  

**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

**Name of Judge**: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Coral Drugs Private Limited Vs The Assistant Controller of Patents

 Coral Drugs Private Limited filed patent application no. 201717022856 for a process of preparing 16,17-acetals of pregnane derivatives. After pre-grant opposition by respondent no.2 and examination, the Assistant Controller rejected the application on 23.03.2023 solely on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) read with Section 25(1)(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. During hearing, the appellant agreed to amend claims by deleting claims 2 and 3 (which had broadened the scope of independent claim 1). The amended claims (Annexure-A) were placed on record, and both respondents (Patent Office and opponent) had no objection to their acceptance. The Court held that deletion of claims 2 & 3 merely narrows the scope without introducing new matter or contravening Section 59, relying on the principle laid down in Fresenius Medical Care case, and remanded the matter for de novo consideration by a different Controller on the amended claims.

**Crisp bullet points of law settled in the case**

- Deletion of dependent claims that broaden the scope of the independent claim, resulting in narrowing of the overall claim scope, does not contravene Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970 and is permissible.  

  (Ref: Paras 8, 11, 12, 14)

- Proposed auxiliary/amended claims that are in the nature of narrowing/disclaimer, do not broaden the scope of earlier filed claims, and whose subject matter is disclosed in the specification, comply with Sections 58(1) and 59 of the Patents Act, 1970.  

  (Ref: Paras 13–14; relying on Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH vs Controller, C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 302/2022, paras 14–15)

- When amended claims are accepted by the Court in appeal, the matter can be remanded for fresh (de novo) consideration by the Controller confined to the amended claims, to be heard by a different officer uninfluenced by the earlier impugned order.  

  (Ref: Paras 14–17)

**Case Details**  

**Case Title**: Coral Drugs Private Limited Vs The Assistant Controller of Patents 

**Order Date**: 29 January 2026  

**Case Number**: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 20/2023 & I.A. 13519/2023  

**Neutral Citation**: (Not assigned / Not indicated in the order)  

**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi  

**Name of Judge**: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mold-Tek Packaging Limited

The **Delhi High Court**, in a detailed Division Bench judgment delivered by Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla on 28 January 2026, addressed cross-appeals arising from an interim injunction order in a patent infringement suit concerning tamper-evident and leak-proof packaging systems for containers, particularly pails and food-grade lids. The Court upheld the injunction against Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. for alleged infringement of Mold-Tek Packaging Limited's patent IN 401417 while setting aside the vacation of injunction for patent IN 298724, thereby restoring interim protection for both patents pending trial. This ruling emphasizes the high threshold for defendants to credibly challenge patent validity at the interim stage and reinforces the application of infringement tests like pith-and-marrow and doctrine of equivalents in prima facie assessments.

**Introduction**  

This decision from the Delhi High Court in cross-appeals under FAO(COMM) 235/2025 and 241/2025 clarifies the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking to defend patent infringement suits by raising invalidity grounds under Sections 64 and 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, at the interim injunction stage under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd., holder of two granted Indian patents for innovative tamper-evident closure systems used in plastic pails and containers for food and industrial storage, alleged infringement by Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s competing products. The Commercial Court had partially confirmed and partially vacated the initial ad-interim injunction, prompting appeals from both sides. The Division Bench meticulously examined infringement mappings, prior art challenges, and equitable considerations, ultimately tilting the balance in favor of preserving status quo through injunctions for both patents while remanding certain validity aspects for deeper trial scrutiny. The judgment underscores that registered patents enjoy a presumption of validity, and defendants must discharge a substantial prima facie burden to rebut infringement or establish invalidity to defeat interim relief, particularly when claim charts and technical comparisons reveal substantial embodiment of essential inventive features.

**Factual Background**  

Mold-Tek Packaging Limited holds Indian Patent No. IN 401417 titled “Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System” and Indian Patent No. IN 298724 titled “A Tamper Proof Lid Having Spout for Containers and Process for Its Manufacture”, both granted and subsisting. These patents cover specialized plastic closure systems featuring tamper-evident bands, peel-off rings, gaskets, and integrated spouts designed to ensure leak-proof sealing, tamper detection, and ease of use in pails and containers for food, chemicals, and other goods. Mold-Tek alleged that Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. was manufacturing, selling, and offering products that directly embodied the essential features of these patented inventions without license, thereby infringing Mold-Tek's exclusive rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970. Neway denied infringement, asserting that its products differed in construction and functionality, and further contended that both patents were invalid on grounds of lack of novelty, obviousness, and anticipation by prior art (including foreign patents and an Indian application IN 288127), availing defenses under Section 107.

**Procedural Background**  

Mold-Tek instituted Commercial Suit CS(Comm) 01/2024 before the District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for patent infringement. Accompanying the suit was an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On 8 January 2024, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted restraining Neway from infringing both patents. Neway applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the injunction. After hearing both sides, the learned Commercial Court, by impugned order dated 20 August 2025, confirmed the injunction qua IN 401417 (finding prima facie infringement and insufficient credible invalidity challenge) but vacated it qua IN 298724 (on grounds of arguable invalidity or non-infringement). Aggrieved, Neway appealed against the confirmation for IN 401417 (FAO(COMM) 235/2025), while Mold-Tek appealed against the vacation for IN 298724 (FAO(COMM) 241/2025), along with connected miscellaneous applications.

**Reasoning and Decision of Court**  

The Division Bench, after hearing senior counsel for both parties at length, dealt with each patent separately while applying the tripartite test for interim injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury). For IN 401417, the Court upheld the Commercial Court's finding of prima facie infringement, noting that Neway's product embodied every essential integer of the claimed dual-lock tamper-evident closure system, including the anti-clockwise peel-off ring and gasket arrangement, satisfying the pith-and-marrow doctrine and doctrine of equivalents. On invalidity, the Bench held that Neway failed to discharge its burden under Sections 64/107 by not providing any claim-to-claim comparative analysis or mapping with cited prior art (such as IN 288127 or US patents); mere general references to foreign patents without technical dissection were insufficient to create a credible challenge at the interim stage. The presumption of validity attached to granted patents prevailed, and the defendant's unsubstantiated assertions did not tilt the balance against injunction. For IN 298724, the Court found the Commercial Court's vacation erroneous, as Mold-Tek had made out a prima facie case of infringement through detailed claim charts showing substantial embodiment of the tamper-proof lid with integrated spout features. The Bench criticized the lower court's reliance on arguable prior art without requiring the defendant to prima facie substantiate invalidity through cogent evidence. Overall, setting aside the impugned order to the extent it vacated relief for IN 298724, the High Court restored interim injunctions for both patents pending suit disposal, remanded the invalidity issues for fresh detailed consideration at trial, and directed expeditious trial. The appeals were disposed accordingly, with costs.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

In patent infringement suits, while defendants may raise invalidity grounds under Section 64 as a defense per Section 107 at any stage including interim injunction proceedings, the burden lies heavily on the defendant to prima facie demonstrate credible invalidity through detailed comparative claim analysis, mapping, and technical evidence vis-à-vis cited prior art; mere general allegations, references to foreign patents without dissection, or lack of claim-to-claim charting are insufficient to rebut the presumption of validity of granted patents or defeat interim injunction where prima facie infringement is otherwise established under Section 48. At the interim stage, courts must apply infringement tests such as pith-and-marrow and doctrine of equivalents by comparing essential claim features with the defendant's product, and equitable relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC favors preserving status quo through injunction when balance of convenience and irreparable injury (dilution of patent monopoly, market share loss) tilt towards the patentee.

**Case Detail**  

- **Title**: Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Mold-Tek Packaging Limited & Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd. v. Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd.  

- **Date of Order**: 28 January 2026  

- **Case Number**: FAO(COMM) 235/2025 & FAO(COMM) 241/2025 (along with connected CM Applications)  

- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:702-DB (as per available metadata)  

- **Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi  

- **Name of Hon'ble Judges**: Justice C. Hari Shankar & Justice Om Prakash Shukla  

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

**Written By**: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

**Suggested Titles for this Article**  

- Delhi High Court Restores Interim Injunctions in Mold-Tek v. Neway Patent Dispute: Burden on Defendant to Prove Invalidity at Prima Facie Stage  

- Tamper-Evident Packaging Patents: Delhi HC Upholds Injunction for IN 401417, Revives for IN 298724 in Neway Industries Appeal  

- Patent Interim Relief: Delhi High Court Clarifies High Threshold for Invalidity Challenge in Infringement Suits  

- Mold-Tek Prevails in Cross-Appeals – Delhi HC Reinforces Presumption of Patent Validity at Interim Stage  

**Suggested Tags**  

#PatentInfringement #InterimInjunction #DelhiHighCourt #TamperEvidentClosure #MoldTek #NewayIndustries #PatentsAct1970 #Section48 #Section107 #Section64 #PithAndMarrow #DoctrineOfEquivalents #IPR #IntellectualProperty #CommercialCourt #IPLitigation  

**Headnote**  

Delhi High Court Division Bench upholds interim injunction against Neway Industries for infringement of Mold-Tek's patent IN 401417 (Tamper-Evident Leak Proof Pail Closure System) and sets aside vacation of injunction for IN 298724 (Tamper Proof Lid with Spout), holding prima facie infringement established under Section 48 Patents Act via pith-and-marrow/equivalents tests; defendant failed to discharge burden under Sections 64/107 to credibly challenge validity through detailed prior art mapping at interim stage, preserving patentee's monopoly pending trial with invalidity issues remanded for fresh consideration.

====

**Very brief and compact summary**

Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd holds Indian patents IN 401417 (tamper-evident leak-proof pail closure system) and IN 298724 (tamper-proof lid with spout for containers). It filed a commercial suit (CS Comm 01/2024) alleging that Neway Industries Pvt Ltd was infringing both patents by manufacturing and selling similar products. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 08.01.2024. Neway applied under Order XXXIX Rule 4 for vacation. The Commercial Court, vide impugned order dated 20.08.2025, confirmed the injunction qua IN 401417 finding prima facie infringement and no credible invalidity challenge, but vacated the injunction qua IN 298724 holding the patent prima facie generic, lacking novelty and inventive step due to prior patent IN 207276 and market products. Both parties filed FAO appeals. The Division Bench upheld the injunction in respect of IN 401417 (dismissing Neway’s appeal FAO 235/2025) as Neway failed to provide product-to-claim mapping or credible prior art comparison (especially vis-à-vis IN 288127) and failed to discharge onus on invalidity. For IN 298724, the Bench upheld the finding of prima facie infringement but set aside the invalidity findings for lack of proper claim comparison with cited prior art, remanded the validity issue afresh to the Commercial Court, revived the original ex-parte injunction of 08.01.2024 till fresh decision, and directed both parties to appear on 17.02.2026 for expeditious hearing.

**Crisp bullet points of law settled**

- In patent infringement proceedings, when invalidity is raised as a defence under Section 107 read with Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, the onus to make out a credible prima facie challenge to validity lies on the defendant once the plaintiff establishes prima facie infringement. (Para 19)

- Product-to-claim mapping is an indispensable element in a patent infringement suit (except where impossible); absence of such mapping seriously undermines the case that the defendant’s product is “that product” covered by the granted claim. (Para 13.9–13.10, relying on Zydus Lifesciences Ltd v E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC, MANU/DE/0186/2026)

- Arguments not pressed or not captured in written submissions before the trial court (even if pleaded) are ordinarily not permitted to be raised for the first time in appeal. (Para 13.5)

- Finding of lack of novelty / obviousness / generic nature cannot negate the existence of infringement; infringement and validity are separate inquiries and must not be conflated. (Para 18.2–18.3)

- When an appellate court sets aside an order that had vacated an earlier ex-parte ad-interim injunction, the earlier ad-interim injunction revives ipso facto; the principle of merger does not prevent such revival. (Para 21–24)

**Case Title, Order date, Case Number, Neutral Citation, Name of court and Name of Judges**

Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mold-Tek Packaging Limited & Connected Matter  

Order dated: 28 January 2026  

Case Numbers: FAO (COMM) 235/2025 & FAO (COMM) 241/2025 (with connected CM Appls.)  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:702-DB  

Court: High Court of Delhi  

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Trackon Couriers Private Limited Vs B. N. Srinivas

The **Bombay High Court**, in a significant ruling on trademark protection for composite marks, granted interim injunction in favor of **Trackon Couriers Private Limited** against the defendant **B. N. Srinivas**, restraining the use of the deceptively similar mark "TRACK-ON" and related variations in the courier and logistics sector.

**Introduction**  

This case exemplifies the robust protection afforded to registered composite/label trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly when a dominant word element forms the essential and leading feature of the mark. The Bombay High Court, through Justice Arif S. Doctor, addressed a classic scenario of alleged infringement and passing off arising from a former business associate's attempt to independently adopt and register a nearly identical mark for identical services. The decision underscores that registration of a composite mark confers statutory exclusivity over its prominent verbal components, especially when such components have acquired distinctiveness and goodwill through long-standing use. It also highlights how courts scrutinize claims of prior or independent use, particularly when contradicted by documentary evidence of permissive use and subsequent undertakings to cease. The ruling reinforces principles of honest adoption, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury in interim relief applications in commercial IP disputes.

**Factual Background**  

Trackon Couriers Private Limited, the plaintiff, has been operating in domestic courier services, international shipping, e-commerce logistics, and supply chain management since 2002. It coined and adopted the term "TRACKON" as a key element of its branding. The plaintiff secured valid and subsisting registrations for composite label marks in Class 39, including "Trackon Couriers" (applied 2004, user claim 2002), "Trackon Couriers Pvt Limited" (applied 2018), and "SURE SAFE SWIFT" (applied 2021), all featuring "TRACKON" prominently alongside a stylized "T" in Devanagari script. These marks enjoyed extensive use, substantial advertising investments, high turnover (exceeding INR 404 crores in 2023-2024), and presence across media, websites, and social platforms, establishing significant goodwill and reputation.  

In 2016, the plaintiff appointed the defendant as a business associate to promote its services in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, authorizing use of "M/S. TRACKON COURIERS & CARGO SERVICES" under specific terms via a letter dated May 5, 2016. The defendant and his wife formed a partnership under that name and used "TRACKON" permissively from 2016 to 2023. In October 2023, the plaintiff demanded cessation of "TRACKON" use and name change. Correspondence from October 28 to November 6, 2023, including emails and meeting minutes, showed the defendant's agreement to comply.  

However, in September 2024, the plaintiff discovered the defendant's new partnership "TRACK ON EXPRESS LOGISTICS" and trademark application for "TRACK-ON EXPRESS" on a proposed-to-be-used basis. A cease-and-desist notice followed on September 16, 2024, and termination of association on September 19, 2024. The defendant claimed prior independent use since 1998 via an alleged sole proprietorship later converted to partnership, but provided no supporting evidence.

**Procedural Background**  

The plaintiff instituted a commercial IP suit before the Bombay High Court, seeking permanent injunction against infringement and passing off, along with other reliefs. Simultaneously, it filed the present interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction pending suit disposal. The matter was heard by Justice Arif S. Doctor, reserved on December 19, 2025, and pronounced on January 22, 2026. The defendant opposed on grounds including lack of territorial jurisdiction, prior use, and equitable defenses like acquiescence, while alleging suppression of documents by the plaintiff.

**Reasoning and Decision of Court**  

The Court rejected the defendant's jurisdictional objection, finding the suit maintainable under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as cause of action arose partly within its jurisdiction through the plaintiff's widespread operations and the defendant's activities impacting the plaintiff's reputation.  

On merits, the Court held that "TRACKON" constituted the prominent, essential, and leading feature of the plaintiff's registered composite/label marks. Unauthorized use of this word, even in variations like "TRACK-ON EXPRESS", amounted to infringement under Section 29(9) of the Act, as spoken or visual representation of such dominant element infringes the registered mark. The Court relied on precedents affirming protection for essential features of composite marks, even absent separate word mark registration.  

The defendant's claim of prior use since 1998 was disbelieved due to lack of evidence; the 2024 trademark application on proposed-to-be-used basis contradicted prior use assertions. The 2016 letter evidenced only permissive use as an associate "on behalf of" the plaintiff, not independent rights. Email correspondence unequivocally showed the defendant's agreement to cease use and change name, rendering subsequent adoption dishonest and lacking bona fides. No acquiescence or suppression was established, as the plaintiff acted promptly upon discovering resumed use.  

The Court found prima facie infringement and passing off, given identical services, deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, and the plaintiff's established goodwill. Balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, with irreparable injury from dilution of reputation if relief denied, while the defendant faced no legitimate prejudice having agreed to discontinue. Interim injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using "TRACK-ON", "TRACKON", or deceptively similar marks/names, with costs awarded. The order was stayed for four weeks to enable appeal.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

A word that forms a prominent, essential, and leading feature of a registered composite or label mark attracts statutory protection under Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such that its unauthorized spoken or visual use constitutes infringement, particularly when the word has acquired goodwill and public association with the registered proprietor, even without separate word mark registration. Permissive or licensed use as a business associate does not confer independent proprietary rights, and subsequent adoption after undertaking to cease use is dishonest, disentitling equitable defenses in interim relief.

**Case Detail**  

- **Title**: Trackon Couriers Private Limited Vs B. N. Srinivas  

- **Date of Order**: 22nd January 2026  

- **Case Number**: Interim Application (L) No. 35022 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 11 of 2025  

- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:BHC:OS:2082  

- **Name of Court**: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division)  

- **Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Justice Arif S. Doctor  

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

**Written By**: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

**Suggested Titles for this Article**  

- Bombay High Court Reinforces Protection for Dominant Word Elements in Composite Trademarks: Trackon Couriers Case Analysis  

- TRACKON Triumph: How Bombay HC Granted Interim Injunction Against Deceptively Similar "TRACK-ON" Mark  

- Dominant Feature Doctrine Upheld: Interim Relief in Trackon Couriers v. B.N. Srinivas Trademark Dispute  

- From Permissive Use to Infringement: Bombay High Court's Key Ruling on TRACKON Trademark  

**Suggested Tags**  

#TrademarkInfringement #CompositeMarks #BombayHighCourt #TRACKON #InterimInjunction #PassingOff #Section29TradeMarksAct #IntellectualProperty #TradeMarkLaw #ArifSDoctor #CourierServices #PriorUse #GoodwillAndReputation #IPLitigation #CommercialDivision  

**Headnote**  

Bombay High Court grants interim injunction restraining defendant from using "TRACK-ON EXPRESS" or similar marks, holding that "TRACKON" as prominent essential feature of plaintiff's registered composite marks is infringed under Section 29(9) of Trade Marks Act, 1999; defendant's claim of prior use disbelieved, adoption found dishonest post-undertaking to cease, establishing prima facie case of infringement and passing off with balance of convenience favoring plaintiff.

=====

**Very Brief and Compact Summary**  

Trackon Couriers Private Limited, using the coined mark "TRACKON" since 2002 with registered composite label marks in Class 39 and substantial goodwill from extensive use, high turnover, and advertising, appointed defendant B.N. Srinivas as business associate in 2016 for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, permitting use of "TRACKON COURIERS & CARGO SERVICES". The defendant used the name permissively until 2023, when plaintiff demanded cessation and name change; correspondence from October-November 2023 showed defendant's agreement to comply. In 2024, plaintiff discovered defendant's new firm "TRACK ON EXPRESS LOGISTICS" and trademark application for "TRACK-ON EXPRESS" on proposed-to-be-used basis, leading to cease-and-desist and termination notices. Plaintiff filed commercial IP suit and interim application for injunction against infringement and passing off. The Bombay High Court rejected defendant's jurisdictional objection and prior-use claim (unsupported and contradicted by proposed-use application and lack of evidence), found "TRACKON" the prominent essential feature of plaintiff's registered composite marks entitled to protection under Section 29(9), held defendant's adoption dishonest post-undertaking to cease, established prima facie infringement and passing off due to identical services and deceptive similarity, and granted interim injunction restraining use of "TRACK-ON", "TRACKON" or confusingly similar marks/names pending suit, with costs, but stayed for four weeks.

**Crisp Points of Law Settled**  

- Registration of a composite/label mark confers statutory exclusivity over its prominent, essential and leading word feature even without separate word-mark registration; unauthorized use of such dominant word (spoken or visual) constitutes infringement under Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, especially when the word has acquired goodwill and public association with the proprietor. (Paras 12–14, relying on Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 50; Jagdish Gopal Kamath v. Lime and Chilli Hospitality Services, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 531; Prince Pipes and Fittings Ltd. v. Shree Sai Plast Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3743; Hindustan Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. K. Ravindra & Co., 1967 SCC OnLine Bom 123; Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Limited, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 136)  

- Permissive/licensed use as business associate does not create independent proprietary rights in the mark; subsequent adoption after express undertaking to cease use and change name is dishonest and lacking bona fides, disentitling equitable defences in interim relief. (Paras 18–25)  

- Claim of prior/independent use is liable to be rejected when unsupported by evidence, contradicted by trademark application on proposed-to-be-used basis, and no contemporaneous documents (such as recitals in partnership deed) support alleged prior sole proprietorship or conversion. (Paras 21–24)

**Case Details**  

- **Case Title**: Trackon Couriers Private Limited Vs B. N. Srinivas  

- **Order Date**: 22nd January 2026  

- **Case Number**: Interim Application (L) No. 35022 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 11 of 2025  

- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:BHC:OS:2082  

- **Name of Court**: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in its Commercial Division)  

- **Name of Judge**: Justice Arif S. Doctor  

**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation  

**Written By**: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi  

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjuto

Narayan Tea Company Vs Raj Laxmi Tea Company

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Narayan Tea Company against the temporary injunction granted by the Commercial Court, Bikaner, restraining it from using the trademark "SHREE RAJLAXMI" or deceptively similar packaging for tea, pending suit disposal. The respondent, M/s Raj Laxmi Tea Company, a prior registered proprietor (since 2008) and user of "RAJLAXMI" for tea with distinctive packaging, sued for infringement alleging deceptive similarity in mark and label causing confusion. 

The appellant denied infringement, claimed distinct packaging, no confusion, familial ties in tea business, and lack of evidence of respondent's goodwill. The trial court granted injunction, finding prima facie infringement. On appeal, the appellant conceded respondent's prior use. The Division Bench upheld the injunction, holding that "RAJLAXMI" is the dominant feature of both marks, the prefix "SHREE" (a common honorific/laudatory term) does not sufficiently distinguish them visually, phonetically or conceptually, creating likelihood of confusion among average consumers for identical FMCG product tea, and allowing use would permit trading on respondent's goodwill; public interest in preventing deception also weighed in favour of injunction.

Law settled in the case:

In comparing trademarks for infringement, courts must assess overall commercial impression, essential/dominant features, and likelihood of confusion/deception in the mind of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. (Para 8)

Addition of a common honorific/laudatory prefix like "SHREE" to a dominant word like "RAJLAXMI" does not materially alter visual, phonetic or conceptual identity or serve to distinguish source, often perceived as variant/extension/association rather than independent origin. (Para 9)

For identical goods like tea (FMCG purchased frequently with ordinary care), even minor similarity suffices to cause confusion as to source/affiliation; subsequent adoption of substantially identical essential features is likely to deceive and trade on prior user's goodwill. (Para 10-11)

Public interest is paramount in trademark infringement adjudication, as confusion affects consumers and general public beyond disputing parties. (Para 12)

Case Title:Narayan Tea Company Vs Raj Laxmi Tea Company :20/01/2026:D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3149/2024 : [2026:RJ-JD-3302-DB]: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Purohit  

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Sunflame Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt.Ltd

Introduction:;The case of Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Private Limited & Anr. exemplifies a classic trademark battle in the competitive kitchen and home appliances sector, where visual, phonetic, and structural similarities in brand names and logos can lead to consumer confusion and dilution of established goodwill. Sunflame, a well-entrenched brand with over four decades of market presence, sought to restrain the defendants from using the mark 'Sunflare' (with a flame device), alleging infringement and passing off. 

The dispute underscores the protection afforded to prior registered users against later-adopted deceptively similar marks, particularly when the rival mark appears designed to capitalize on the plaintiff's reputation in household consumer goods. The interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC focused on preventing irreparable harm pending trial, balancing the equities in favor of preserving established goodwill.

Factual Background:  Sunflame Enterprises traces its origins to 1980 when its predecessor, a partnership firm M/s Sunflame Industries, commenced manufacturing and marketing gas stoves under the 'Sunflame' mark. The company was formally incorporated in 1984 as Sunflame Appliances Marketing Pvt. Ltd., renamed Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in 1995. 

Over more than four decades, Sunflame has evolved into a leading manufacturer and distributor of a diverse range of kitchen and home appliances, including gas stoves, burners, chimneys, cooktops, mixers, grinders, water heaters, induction cookers, pressure cookers, cookware, and room heaters. The brand emphasizes innovation, research and development, quality control, and customer satisfaction through an extensive dealer and service network across India.

The 'Sunflame' mark, often stylized with a flame device integrated into the lettering (particularly in the 'o'), has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through continuous, extensive, and uninterrupted use since 1980. 

Sunflame holds multiple trademark registrations across various classes, including Class 11 (heating and cooking apparatus), Class 21 (household utensils), Class 9 (electrical appliances), Class 7 (machines), and Class 17 (insulating materials). Key registrations date back to 1980, with use claimed from as early as 2000 in some cases. The plaintiff's substantial investments in quality, advertising, and distribution have resulted in steady growth in sales turnover, reflecting immense goodwill and reputation synonymous with reliable, high-performance appliances.

The defendants, Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and another entity, adopted the mark 'Sunflare' (depicted as 'SUNFLARE' with a flame-like device), which the plaintiff alleged was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar. Defendant No. 2 filed trademark applications in 2022 for 'Sunflare' in Classes 21 and 9. The plaintiff claimed the adoption was dishonest, aimed at riding on Sunflame's reputation, and likely to cause confusion among average consumers purchasing impulse-driven household appliances.

Procedural Background:  

The suit was instituted in 2024 as CS(COMM) 216/2024, seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for trademark infringement and passing off. Along with the plaint, I.A. No. 5557/2024 was filed for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the defendants from using 'Sunflare' or any deceptively similar mark. 

Reasoning and Decision of Court: The court comprehensively examined the plaintiff's long-standing prior use since 1980, multiple registrations, extensive sales, and established goodwill, which conferred distinctiveness on the 'Sunflame' mark despite its suggestive elements. 

The defendants' mark 'Sunflare' was found to be phonetically similar (sharing the 'Sunfla' prefix), visually akin due to the flame device, and structurally deceptive, with the dominant feature being the common 'Sunfl' element combined with flame imagery evocative of fire and cooking. The court applied the dominant feature test, holding that consumers of average intelligence would likely associate 'Sunflare' with 'Sunflame' even without side-by-side comparison, leading to initial confusion or wonder about affiliation.

The adoption was deemed prima facie dishonest, as the defendants failed to explain how they arrived at such a strikingly similar mark, suggesting an intent to ride on the plaintiff's reputation. The mark was not descriptive or generic, serving as a source identifier for kitchen appliances. A strong prima facie case of both infringement (due to registered rights in relevant classes) and passing off (substantial goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage) was established. 

The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as continued use by defendants would erode goodwill and cause irreparable injury, whereas restraint would not unduly prejudice defendants who could adopt alternative branding. Accordingly, interim injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from using 'Sunflare' or any deceptively similar mark pending final disposal of the suit.

Point of Law Settled in the Case: This decision reaffirms the application of the dominant feature test in assessing deceptive similarity under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the essential or striking elements (here, 'Sunfl' prefix and flame motif) prevail over minor differences. 

It clarifies that suggestive marks with acquired distinctiveness through long use and registration enjoy robust protection against phonetically and visually similar later marks, even if the rival mark incorporates a device. Courts prioritize evidence of prior adoption, goodwill, and dishonest intent in interim relief, emphasizing that equity demands restraint to prevent consumer confusion and unjust enrichment in FMCG-like appliance markets where purchases are brand-driven. Honest concurrent use defenses fail when adoption appears calculated to exploit reputation.

Case Title: Sunflame Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.  

Date of Order: 31.01.2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 216/2024  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:783  

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.  

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

**Suggested Titles for this Article**  

1. Sunflame Triumphs in Interim Battle: Delhi High Court Restrains 'Sunflare' Mark for Infringement and Passing Off  

2. Flame of Similarity: Detailed Analysis of Sunflame Enterprises v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Trademark Injunction  

3. Protecting Brand Legacy: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Sunflame Against Deceptively Similar 'Sunflare'  

4.Infringement and passing off due to phonetic, visual, and structural similarity

**Suitable Tags**  

trademark infringement, passing off, Sunflame, Sunflare, kitchen appliances, gas stoves, dominant feature test, deceptive similarity, interim injunction, Delhi High Court, goodwill, prior use, flame logo, consumer confusion

**Headnote**  

In this case titled as Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited v. Kitchenopedia Appliances Private Limited & Anr., the Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'Sunflare' mark (with flame device) for kitchen appliances, finding prima facie Infringement and passing off due to phonetic, visual, and structural similarity with the plaintiff's long-established 'Sunflame' mark. The ruling applies the dominant feature test, upholds protection for registered suggestive marks with acquired distinctiveness, and stresses equitable relief against dishonest adoption to prevent consumer deception and irreparable harm to goodwill in the home appliances sector.

=====

The case involves a trademark infringement and passing off suit by Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against Kitchenopedia Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and another, concerning the mark 'SUNFLAME' (with flame device) used since 1980 by the plaintiff (through predecessor) for manufacturing and selling kitchen appliances like gas stoves, chimneys, cooktops, and more, with substantial goodwill, sales, and multiple registrations. 

The plaintiff alleged defendants' adoption of 'SUNFLARE/SUNFLARE' (with similar flame/sun-like device) for identical goods was deceptively similar, phonetically close, and intended to mislead consumers. 

 

After considering submissions on prior continuous use, registrations, phonetic/semantic/visual similarity, likelihood of confusion in identical goods class, dishonest adoption, and balance of convenience favoring prevention of irreparable harm to plaintiff's established reputation over defendants' recent use, the court granted interim injunction restraining defendants from using 'SUNFLARE/SUNFLARE' or any deceptively similar mark pending suit disposal, without prejudice to final merits.

Law Point Settled:

Phonetic similarity between 'SUNFLAME' and 'SUNFLARE' combined with visual similarity in flame/sun device and identical goods creates strong likelihood of confusion and deception, warranting interim injunction in trademark infringement/passing off cases.

Prior long continuous use since 1980 establishing goodwill and reputation in household kitchen appliances tilts prima facie case and balance of convenience in favor of plaintiff at interim stage, even against later adopters. 

In cases of deceptive similarity in identical class of goods, irreparable injury presumed from potential loss of goodwill and consumer confusion justifies interim restraint without requiring exhaustive proof of actual damage at that stage. 

Case Title: Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. Vs Kitchenopedia Appliances P. Ltd.: 31.01.2026: CS(COMM) 216/2024:226:DHC:783 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

=====

Sabu Trade Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Sabu

Introduction:  The consolidated judgment in Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Raj Kumar Sabu & Anr (CS(COMM) 97/2020) and the connected suit Raj Kumar Sabu v. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors (CS(COMM) 761/2016) addresses a deeply entrenched family and business conflict over the proprietorship, adoption, and use of the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in relation to sabudana (sago) and allied edible products. 

This dispute pits Sabu Trade Private Limited (STPL), a family-owned company, against Raj Kumar Sabu, a former director and family member, amid allegations of surreptitious registration, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and fabrication of documents. 

The core issue revolves around whether the mark belongs to the company through prior use and goodwill or to Raj Kumar Sabu through personal registration and an alleged assignment via an affidavit from their late mother. 

The judgment, delivered on 31 January 2026, resolves multiple interlocutory applications concerning amendment of pleadings, interrogatories, additional documents, and a criminal miscellaneous application, emphasizing procedural fairness, the need to adjudicate real controversies, and the threshold for allowing discovery in commercial trademark disputes.

Factual Background: The origins trace back to the family business run under the name M/s Sabu Traders, which achieved success in trading sabudana and related products. In 1993, the family incorporated M/s Sabu Export Salem Pvt Ltd, later renamed Sabu Trade Private Limited (STPL) in 2006. The initial directors included Kaushalya Devi Sabu, Gopal Sabu, Shivnarayan Sabu, and Raj Kumar Sabu. STPL claims to be the true proprietor and prior user of the ‘SACHAMOTI’ mark, asserting that Raj Kumar Sabu, while serving as a director and distributor, surreptitiously obtained trademark registrations in his personal name despite his association with the company. STPL alleges that Raj Kumar Sabu misused his position to register the mark personally, thereby depriving the company of its goodwill built over years of use.

Conversely, Raj Kumar Sabu maintains that the ‘SACHAMOTI’ mark is registered in his favor in Class 30 under application No. 1169859. He relies on an affidavit dated 08.06.2016 purportedly executed by his late mother, Smt. Chandrakanta Sabu, which allegedly assigned the rights, title, and interest in the mark to him in 1997. This affidavit forms the cornerstone of his claim to exclusive ownership. The dispute escalated into litigation with STPL filing a suit originally in the District Court, Salem (later transferred to Delhi High Court), seeking to restrain Raj Kumar Sabu and his entity from using the mark, while Raj Kumar Sabu filed a connected suit seeking a permanent injunction against STPL and its directors from using ‘SACHAMOTI’.

Procedural Background: The original suit (OS No. 148 of 2016) filed by STPL in Salem was transferred to the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.07.2019 in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1676 of 2017, 1328 of 2018, and Civil Appeal Nos. 5644-5645 of 2019. The connected suit was instituted directly in the Delhi High Court. Over time, multiple applications arose due to evolving pleadings and evidentiary needs. STPL filed I.A. No. 10994/2020 seeking amendment of its plaint to update sales and advertisement figures, insert paragraphs alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and fabrication of the affidavit attributed to Chandrakanta Sabu, amend valuation paragraphs, and add prayers to declare the affidavit null and void while directing transfer of the mark to STPL. In the connected suit, defendants (STPL side) sought amendment of their written statement via I.A. No. 11028/2020 to update sales and advertisement averments.

STPL also filed I.A. No. 8922/2020 under Order XI Rule 2 CPC for permission to administer interrogatories highlighting alleged inconsistencies in Raj Kumar Sabu’s pleadings, trademark affidavits, and positions in related proceedings. Additional documents were sought, with objections raised on relevance and specific items. 

A criminal miscellaneous application (CrI.M.A. No. 12366/2020) in the connected suit was also considered, likely concerning allegations of fabrication or contempt. 

Reasoning and Decision of Court: The court began by identifying the overlapping factual matrix and the need for a common judgment to resolve procedural bottlenecks efficiently. On amendment applications, it noted that STPL sought to introduce allegations of fraud, fabrication of the affidavit, and breach of fiduciary duty, supported by claims of inconsistencies and prima facie falsehood in documents. 

The court found a prima facie case of falsehood in the affidavit and related materials, reasoning that such amendments were necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties, especially since the suit was at an early stage with no trial commencement. 

It emphasized that amendments should be liberally allowed if they do not alter the fundamental character of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice, and here the proposed changes clarified ownership issues central to the dispute.  The amendments to sales/advertisement figures were rejected.

Regarding interrogatories, the court scrutinized whether they were in prescribed format and amounted to impermissible fishing or cross-examination. 

It held that the interrogatories were relevant to probe inconsistencies in Raj Kumar Sabu’s stands across proceedings, including trademark affidavits, and were not exploratory but targeted at material facts. Permission was granted under the Commercial Courts Act framework, underscoring the need for full discovery in commercial disputes involving fraud allegations. 

On additional documents, the court overruled blanket objections to relevance, allowing those directly connected to use, goodwill, or the affidavit’s authenticity, while rejecting others lacking nexus. Specific objections were addressed individually, with the court balancing probative value against prejudice. 

Point of Law Settled in the Case :This judgment reinforces liberal principles for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in commercial IP disputes. It clarifies that interrogatories in commercial suits (post-CC Act) can be allowed if targeted at inconsistencies and material facts rather than fishing expeditions.In family/business trademark conflicts involving fiduciary duties, courts prioritize procedural tools to prevent injustice from suppressed facts.

Case Title: Sabu Trade Private Limited Vs. Raj Kumar Sabu & Anr (and Connected Suit: Raj Kumar Sabu v. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors)  

Date of Order: 31.01.2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 97/2020 (and Connected CS(COMM) 761/2016)  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:796  

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.  

**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

**Suggested Titles for this Article**  

1. Family Feud Over ‘SACHAMOTI’ Mark: Delhi High Court Allows Amendments and Interrogatories in Trademark Ownership Battle  

2. Procedural Breakthrough in Sabu Trade v. Raj Kumar Sabu: Key Rulings on Fraud Allegations and Discovery in IP Disputes  

3. Delhi High Court Enables Full Adjudication in ‘SACHAMOTI’ Trademark Dispute Through Liberal Procedural Reliefs  

**Suitable Tags**  

trademark ownership, SACHAMOTI, sabudana, passing off, infringement, family business dispute, amendment of pleadings, interrogatories, additional documents, fraud in affidavit, fiduciary duty, Delhi High Court, commercial courts act, prior use, goodwill

**Headnote**  

In Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Raj Kumar Sabu & Connected Suit, the Delhi High Court allowed amendments to pleadings introducing fraud and fabrication allegations regarding an assignment affidavit, permitted targeted interrogatories to address inconsistencies, and admitted relevant additional documents in a family dispute over the ‘SACHAMOTI’ trademark for sabudana products. The ruling highlights liberal amendment principles, the scope of discovery in commercial IP cases, and the need to resolve real controversies involving prima facie falsehoods, ensuring fair adjudication of proprietorship claims.

=====

The case arises from a long-standing family dispute over the trademark "SACHAMOTI" (and associated label/copyright) used for sabudana (sago) and related products, involving brothers Rajkumar Sabu (RKS) and Gopal Sabu, along with family entities like Sabu Trade Pvt Ltd (STPL) and others. 

The dispute originated from joint family business origins, with RKS claiming assignment from late mother Chandrakanta Sabu and obtaining registration, while STPL and others asserted prior family use and challenged validity. Two connected suits were filed: CS(COMM) 761/2016 by RKS against Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors (including STPL/Gopal) for infringement/passing off, and CS(COMM) 97/2020 by STPL against RKS & Anr seeking similar reliefs. 

Multiple interim applications arose including for amendment of pleadings, interrogatories, additional documents, and a criminal miscellaneous application. 

The court dealt with objections to amendments as substantive/prejudicial, interrogatories as fishing/cross-examination, relevance of additional documents, and prima facie falsehood in claims. 

After analyzing submissions, evidence of registrations, user claims, inconsistencies, and procedural aspects, the court granted interim injunction in favor of RKS restraining defendants from using the mark/label in CS 761/2016, rejected STPL's injunction application in CS 97/2020, allowed certain amendments/interrogatories/documents with conditions where relevant and non-prejudicial, dismissed others as irrelevant/fishing, and rejected the criminal miscellaneous application finding no prima facie falsehood warranting action, directing suits to proceed on merits with consolidated trial considerations.

Law Point Settled: Amendments to pleadings in trademark/family disputes are permissible if they do not introduce entirely new causes or cause irreparable prejudice, but substantive changes altering core claims may be disallowed at advanced stages; 

Interrogatories under Order XI CPC must be relevant, in prescribed format, and not amount to fishing enquiry or cross-examination.

Additional documents can be permitted under Order VII Rule 14/ Order VIII Rule 1A CPC if good cause shown for late filing and relevance to issues, but irrelevant or inadmissible documents.

In family trademark disputes involving registration vs prior use claims, registered proprietor enjoys prima facie statutory protection under Sections 28 & 31 Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Case Title: Sabu Trade Pvt Ltd Vs Raj Kumar Sabu:31.01.2026: (CS(COMM) 97/2020 :2026:DHC:786: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

=====

Emami Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited

Introduction:  The case of Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited represents a significant battle in the competitive landscape of ayurvedic personal care products in India, particularly in the therapeutic cooling oil segment. Emami, the established market leader with its iconic Navratna Oil, alleged that Dabur’s newly launched Cool King Thanda Tael product copied essential elements of its trade dress, bottle design, and overall get-up, amounting to passing off. The dispute centered on whether the defendant’s product created a false association with the plaintiff’s long-standing brand, potentially deceiving consumers and diluting Emami’s goodwill. This interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC highlights the critical role of trade dress protection in passing off actions, where visual similarity and consumer perception play pivotal roles in establishing misrepresentation.

Factual Background:Emami Limited, founded in 1974 as the flagship of the Emami Group, has been a pioneer in ayurvedic medicines and personal care products since 1982. Its flagship product, Navratna Oil, was launched in January 1989 with the memorable catchphrase “Thanda Thanda Cool Cool.” Over three decades of continuous and uninterrupted use, Navratna has become synonymous with therapeutic cooling oil, commanding a dominant market share of 66% in the segment as of 2022. The product offers multi-purpose benefits, including relief, relaxation, and rejuvenation, and enjoys immense consumer trust across India and export markets.

Emami secured multiple trademark registrations for marks such as “NAVRATNA,” “NAVRATNA OIL,” “THANDA THANDA COOL COOL,” “COOL COOL,” “HALKA HALKA COOL COOL,” and others in Classes 3 and 5. These registrations date back to as early as 1998 and cover labels, devices, and phrases associated with cooling sensations. 

The product is packaged in a distinctive red trade dress, featuring elements like hibiscus/china rose flowers, ice crystals, ayurvedic herbs, and a saintly figure, which has remained largely consistent despite minor updates over time. Emami’s bottles are uniquely designed and registered under the Designs Act, 2000 (Registrations 253389 and 279325). Copyright registrations further protect the labels (e.g., A-58209/2000 for Himani Navratna Oil label).

The plaintiff invested heavily in promotion through television, newspapers, hoardings, and other media since 1989-90. Sales turnover figures demonstrate exponential growth, starting from INR 14.77 lakhs in 1990-91 to INR 58,562.25 lakhs in 2021-22, totaling over INR 727,085.81 lakhs. This established immense goodwill, with Navratna identified exclusively with Emami.

In June 2023, Emami discovered Dabur’s Cool King Thanda Tael, launched in transparent red bottles of similar shape and configuration to Emami’s registered designs. The packaging adopted a red color scheme, featured “Thanda Tael,” “Cool King,” and “Cool Oil” marks, and included similar visual elements like hibiscus, ice, and ayurvedic herbs. Emami alleged deliberate copying to pass off the product as associated with Navratna, causing confusion and potential damage to its reputation.

Procedural Background: Emami filed CS(COMM) 532/2023 seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for passing off, design infringement, and copyright violation. In I.A. No. 14557/2023, an ex parte interim injunction was granted on 09.08.2023 restraining Dabur from selling Cool King Thanda Tael in the impugned trade dress or any deceptively similar variant. Dabur appealed in FAO(OS)(COMM) 171/2023, and the Division Bench set aside the order on 21.08.2023, directing that Dabur be given an opportunity to file a reply before adjudication. After affidavits and hearings, by order dated 29.02.2024, Emami confined arguments to passing off, reserving other claims for the suit. The matter was re-heard, culminating in the judgment dated 31.01.2026.

Reasoning and Decision of Court:The court examined the plaintiff’s established goodwill, prior use since 1989, extensive registrations, and overwhelming sales evidence, which demonstrated Navratna’s household status and secondary meaning in the cooling oil market. The red trade dress, bottle shape, and elements like “Thanda,” cooling imagery, and herbal motifs were deemed distinctive through long association with Emami. The court noted that trade dress protection extends to overall visual impression, not isolated features, and common elements (e.g., red color or herbs) become protectable when combined uniquely.

Dabur’s adoption of near-identical bottle design, red packaging, phonetic similarity in marks (“Thanda Tael” vs “Thanda Thanda Cool Cool”), and visual cues created a high likelihood of confusion among average consumers seeking cooling benefits. The court found mala fide intent in the deliberate copying to ride on Emami’s reputation. 

Prima facie case of passing off was established, with misrepresentation leading to likelihood of damage through diverted sales and reputational harm. Balance of convenience favored Emami, as irreparable injury would ensue without restraint, while Dabur could continue sales under non-similar packaging. The court granted interim injunction, restraining Dabur from using the impugned trade dress or any deceptively similar variant pending suit disposal.

Point of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment reinforces that in passing off actions, trade dress enjoys robust protection where long user has endowed it with distinctiveness and goodwill, even absent direct trademark infringement. Courts must assess overall get-up and consumer impression rather than dissecting individual elements. 

Phonetic, visual, and structural similarities in packaging, especially in FMCG products purchased on impulse, suffice to establish deception. The requirement of prior opportunity to defendant in interim matters is procedural fairness, but does not dilute the threshold for injunction where prima facie case, balance, and irreparable harm are satisfied.

Case Title: Emami Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited  

Date of Order: 31.01.2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 532/2023  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:785  

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Disclaimer:Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.  

Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

**Suggested Titles for this Article**  

1. Trade Dress Passing Off: Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur in Navratna vs Cool King Dispute  

2. Cooling Oil Wars: Analytical Breakdown of Emami v. Dabur Interim Injunction on Trade Dress  

3. Protecting Goodwill in Ayurvedic Products: Key Takeaways from Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited

4.Passing off through deceptively similar trade dress

**Suitable Tags**  

passing off, trade dress, trademark infringement, cooling hair oil, Navratna Oil, Dabur Cool King, ayurvedic products, interim injunction, Delhi High Court, intellectual property, goodwill, deceptive similarity, FMCG packaging, Emami v Dabur,

**Headnote**  

Delhi High Court granted injunction against Dabur’s Cool King Thanda Tael for passing off through deceptively similar red trade dress, bottle design, and marks imitating Emami’s Navratna Oil. The judgment underscores trade dress protection based on acquired distinctiveness in the therapeutic cooling oil market.

====

The case concerns a passing off action by Emami Limited against Dabur India Limited regarding the trade dress of cooling hair oil products. Emami, launching Navratna Oil in 1989 with the slogan "Thanda Thanda Cool Cool" and dominant red trade dress featuring a crown device, claimed market leadership (66% share in 2022) and multiple trademark registrations for "Navratna", "Thanda Thanda Cool Cool" variants, and associated get-up. 

Emami alleged Dabur's "Cool King Thanda Tael" product, launched later, copied the overall trade dress including red bottle, crown-like element, cooling claims, and similar get-up to deceive consumers and ride on Emami's goodwill. 

Emami filed CS(COMM) 532/2023 seeking injunction among other reliefs. Single Judge initially granted ex parte interim injunction on 09.08.2023 restraining Dabur from using the impugned trade dress, but Division Bench set it aside on 21.08.2023 for lack of opportunity to Dabur to file reply, remanding for fresh consideration after hearing. 

Plaintiff confined arguments to passing off for interim relief. After detailed submissions, evidence of sales, advertisements, consumer surveys, and comparison of packaging, the Court found Emami established prima facie goodwill and reputation in distinctive red trade dress with crown and cooling indicia through long prior use since 1989. 

Dabur's product adopted similar overall impression creating likelihood of confusion and passing off, with balance of convenience favoring Emami due to potential irreparable harm. Interim injunction granted restraining Dabur from using or selling products in the impugned trade dress or deceptively similar get-up pending suit disposal, without prejudice to merits.

Law Point Settled:

In passing off claims involving trade dress of cooling oils, prior extensive use establishing goodwill in distinctive elements like color scheme, device (crown), and cooling slogans creates prima facie case for protection even without word mark infringement, where overall visual impression likely causes confusion.

 

Ex parte interim injunctions in IP matters may be set aside if defendant not given opportunity to file reply, emphasizing natural justice, but fresh hearing can restore restraint upon prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. 

Comparative elements in packaging (color, device, descriptive cooling phrases) can support passing off if intentional copying exploits plaintiff's reputation, tilting interim relief in plaintiff's favor despite common descriptive terms. 

Case Title: Emami Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited: 31.01.2026: CS(COMM) 532/2023:2026:DHC:785: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

======