Introduction
In the intricate world of trademark law, the clash between brand identity and deceptive similarity often leads to courtroom battles that test the boundaries of legal discretion and statutory protection. The case of Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. vs Max Healthcare Institute Limited, decided by the High Court of Delhi on March 26, 2025, is a compelling narrative of such a struggle. This appeal, arising from a contentious interim injunction dispute, pits Max Healthcare Institute Limited, a titan in India’s healthcare sector with a "well-known" trademark, against Imax Healthcare Private Limited, accused of riding on Max’s goodwill. The High Court’s intervention not only rectifies a lower court’s misstep but also reinforces the judiciary’s duty to evaluate trademark disputes on their merits, ensuring fairness and public interest prevail.
Detailed Factual Background
Max Healthcare Institute Limited, the respondent, is a prominent healthcare provider in India, operating since 2000 with a network of hospitals and services under the trademark "MAX," often accompanied by terms like "Healthcare," "Hospital," or "Medcentre." The "MAX" mark, registered as a composite trademark in various forms, has been judicially recognized as "well-known" in prior litigation, notably in CS (COMM) 603/23, where the Delhi High Court declared it so based on over 23 years of use, significant revenue (INR 185,446 lakhs in 2021), and multiple injunctions against infringers. Max has vigilantly protected its mark, securing ex parte and permanent injunctions against entities using "MAX" in healthcare contexts across India.
Imax Healthcare Private Limited, the appellant, operates in Tamil Nadu, using the mark "IMAX" for similar healthcare services. Max alleged that "IMAX" infringed its registered trademarks, claiming phonetic and visual similarity likely to confuse consumers into associating Imax with Max’s reputed brand. Max pointed to its nationwide goodwill and online presence, arguing that Imax’s use of a similar mark, despite its regional operation, diluted its brand and misled the public. Imax, however, asserted its independence EDITION
Detailed Procedural Background
The dispute began when Max filed a suit, CS (Comm) 247/2024, before the District Judge (Commercial) in Delhi, accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking an interim injunction against Imax’s use of the "IMAX" mark. On May 15, 2024, the Commercial Court rejected the application, citing differences in corporate structure, the composite nature of Max’s registrations, and Imax’s limited operation in Tamil Nadu, where Max had no physical presence. Aggrieved, Max appealed to the Delhi High Court in FAO (Comm) 117/2024. On September 25, 2024, a Division Bench set aside the order, criticizing the lower court’s reasoning and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits. The Commercial Court, on December 19, 2024, interpreted this as a mandate to grant the injunction, issuing an order restraining Imax from using "IMAX" or similar marks. Imax then appealed this decision to the High Court in FAO (COMM) 60/2025, heard on March 26, 2025, before Justices C. Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul.
Issues Involved in the Case
The case raised critical questions: (1) Whether the Commercial Court misinterpreted the High Court’s earlier directive, failing to assess the injunction application on merits; (2) Whether "IMAX" infringes Max’s "MAX" trademark due to deceptive similarity; (3) Whether Max’s status as a "well-known" mark entitles it to nationwide protection, irrespective of Imax’s regional operations; and (4) Whether the lower court’s discretionary power to grant injunctions was exercised arbitrarily.
Detailed Submission of Parties
Max, represented by Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, Mr. Siddharth Varshney, and Mr. Yash Raj, argued that its "MAX" mark, recognized as "well-known," enjoys robust protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They contended that "IMAX" is phonetically and visually similar, risking consumer confusion, especially given Max’s online presence and plans for expansion. Max highlighted Imax’s alleged mala fides, citing fabricated documents—like a COVID test kit bill predating the pandemic—as evidence of bad faith. They relied on prior injunctions against similar marks to assert consistent judicial protection.
Imax, through counsel, countered that "IMAX" is distinct from "MAX," emphasizing its registration and use in Tamil Nadu, where Max has no hospitals. They argued that "MAX" is not exclusively owned by Max, pointing to other registered marks like "IMAXX HAIR" and "Pathmax," and challenged the claim of confusion given their regional confinement. Imax maintained that Max’s composite registrations do not confer monopoly over the word "MAX" alone.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments Along with Their Complete Citation Cited by Parties and Their Respective Context
The High Court’s analysis drew on precedents cited in the earlier FAO (Comm) 117/2024 order, reflecting principles Max likely invoked. In Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. v Sahrudya Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9036), the court found "MAXCURE" deceptively similar to "MAX," granting an injunction based on public confusion and statutory protection, rejecting arguments that remedies lie solely in passing off. Automatic Electric Ltd. v R.K. Dhawan (77 (1999) DLT 292) and The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture ((2008) 37 PTC 468 (Del) (DB)) estopped defendants seeking registration from challenging a plaintiff’s mark’s registrability, a principle Max used against Imax’s own trademark applications. Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel ((2006) 8 SCC 726) supported Max’s claim that adopting a prominent word from a composite mark constitutes infringement, reinforcing the dominance of "MAX" in its branding. Imax’s defense echoed Sunil Mittal v Darzi On Call (2017 SCC OnLine Del 7387), suggesting Max’s failure to sue all "MAX" users weakens its exclusivity claim, though this was dismissed as irrelevant to specific infringement.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge
Justice C. Hari Shankar, writing for the Division Bench, sharply criticized the Commercial Court’s December 19, 2024, order. He found that the lower court misconstrued the September 25, 2024, directive, treating it as a conclusive mandate to grant the injunction rather than a call for de novo merit-based review. The judge emphasized that the High Court’s earlier order preserved all parties’ contentions, expecting a reasoned decision, not a mechanical compliance. The Commercial Court’s brief dismissal of Imax’s arguments—relying on prior High Court observations without fresh analysis—was deemed a "non-application of mind." Justice Shankar clarified that judicial discretion in granting injunctions, while broad, is not arbitrary; it must align with established principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm, which the lower court failed to evaluate. He refrained from opining on substantive issues—like similarity or mala fides—leaving them for the Commercial Court’s reconsideration, but underscored the need for a thorough, unbiased assessment.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed Imax’s appeal, setting aside the December 19, 2024, order and remanding the injunction application to the Commercial Court for fresh adjudication on merits. Both parties were directed to appear on April 3, 2025, with a request for a decision within two weeks, preserving all legal remedies for future challenges.
Law Settled in This Case
This ruling reinforces that courts must exercise discretion in trademark injunctions judiciously, grounded in a merits-based analysis, not perfunctory adherence to appellate observations. It upholds the principle that a "well-known" mark’s protection is a live issue requiring evidence of confusion or dilution, not an automatic bar to similar marks, ensuring fair hearings in interim relief disputes.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
