Dabur India Limited Vs Marico Limited

Introduction

This case study examines the legal proceedings between Dabur India Limited and Marico Limited before the Delhi High Court concerning multiple cancellation petitions filed by Dabur challenging the trademark registrations of Marico. The controversy primarily revolves around allegations of trademark similarity and deception, and subsequent amendments sought by Dabur to align its claims consistently across concurrent litigation. The Court was required to decide on the permissibility and impact of amendment of pleadings in light of existing contradictory assertions made by the parties in related commercial suit proceedings, weighing principles of procedural fairness and judicial consistency.

Factual Background

The dispute involves Dabur India Limited as the petitioner and Marico Limited as the respondent, relating to alleged trademark conflicts. Marico had filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 303/2023) against Dabur alleging infringement and passing-off for its ‘REDKING’ hair oil product brand, contending that Dabur’s ‘COOL KING’ mark was deceptively similar. Dabur appeared in the commercial suit and took a categorical stand denying any similarity between the marks. In addition to the commercial suit, Dabur independently filed multiple cancellation petitions under trademark law in August 2024 seeking to cancel Marico's trademark registrations. However, the pleadings in Dabur's cancellation petitions contained inconsistent averments accusing the marks of deceptive similarity, contradicting its earlier stand.

Procedural Background

The Court was seized with interlocutory applications filed by Dabur under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the cancellation petitions to rectify errors in the pleadings that created inconsistency with the stands already taken before the Court in CS(COMM) 303/2023. The amendments proposed deletion of claims of deceptive similarity in favor of asserting non-similarity consistent with earlier pleadings in the commercial suit. Respondent Marico opposed the amendment claiming that the inconsistent pleas amounted to admissions now barred from withdrawal, relying on Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court heard detailed arguments on whether the amendments should be permitted given that the contradictory averments may have created vested rights in favor of Marico.

Core Dispute

The primary issue was whether Dabur could amend its cancellation petitions to withdraw admissions of deceptive similarity made inadvertently, and align its pleadings with its original defense in the commercial suit denying similarity. Marico contended that allowing such amendments would prejudice its vested rights and undermine judicial consistency, asserting that admissions once made cannot be retracted. The petitioner argued that the amendment was necessary to correct lawyer errors, avoid contradictory pleadings across cases, and pose no prejudice to the respondents.

Discussion on Judgments

Dabur relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166 which permits rectification of pleadings where errors have occurred without prejudice to the other party. Marico referred to authoritative decisions including Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 278 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1 to argue that admissions made in pleadings, particularly factual and legal admissions, cannot be withdrawn by amendments as these create binding effects and rights in favor of the opposing party. The Court was required to balance these competing jurisprudential lines relating to procedural amendments and doctrinal binding nature of admissions.

The Court observed that the inconsistent averments in the cancellation petitions were clearly incongruous with the stands taken in the commercial suit pleadings affirmed earlier. However, it noted that the amendment application was filed promptly upon realization of the error and prior to the filing of any reply by the respondents in the cancellation petitions, mitigating any prejudice. The Court emphasized that the issue of deceptive similarity at the injunction or trial stage is ultimately to be decided on merit and evidence, not merely on averments or admissions in pleadings. Applying the principles from Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi, the Court held that since the amendment does not introduce new causes of action or change substantive claims but only corrects internal inconsistency, the alteration should be allowed. The Court found no vested right accruing to Marico simply from the erroneous averments that justified denial of amendment. It underscored the petitioner’s duty to avoid contradictory pleadings and the lawyer’s error causing the inconsistency, permitting correction in the interests of justice.

The Court allowed the applications by Dabur India Limited to amend the cancellation petitions, striking the inconsistent averments asserting deceptive similarity and aligning the pleadings with earlier consistent stand denying similarity. The amended petitions were directed to be taken on record. The Court also condoned the delay by Marico Limited in filing replies and granted them time to respond to the amended petitions. Costs were imposed on Dabur towards the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee as a measure of accountability. The matter was listed for further proceedings before the Court to address the substantive trademark issues.

This case reaffirms the principle that procedural amendments to pleadings are liberally allowed to correct errors or remove inconsistencies to ensure fair adjudication of substantive rights. It establishes that accidental admissions or contradictory pleadings made without intent do not create irrevocable vested rights that bar correction, especially when amendments are sought promptly and do not prejudice the opposing party. The Court further clarifies that findings on issues like deceptive similarity require evidence-based trial adjudication and cannot be bootstrapped merely on pleadings or admissions alone. This judgment upholds consistency, procedural fairness, and avoidance of contradictory positions in connected proceedings.

Dabur India Limited Vs Marico Limited:August 20, 2025:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024, High Court of Delhi : Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora  

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

Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.