Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. Versus Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited

Enforcement of Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation in Commercial Trademark Disputes

The case titled "Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. Versus Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited and others," decided on August 29, 2025, in OMP No. 644 of 2025 under COMS No.1 of 2025:2025:HHC:29474: by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, was presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel.

## Detailed Summary

### Facts

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd., the plaintiff, is the registered proprietor of well-known trademarks "Glucon-D" and "Glucon-C" used in relation to glucose powder-based drink mixes. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, primarily Karnal Foods Pack Cluster Limited and others, were manufacturing, selling, and offering for sale products under marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks such as "Glucose-D," "Glucospoon-D," and "Glucose-C," thereby infringing the plaintiff's trademark rights and committing passing off.

The plaintiff traced the alleged infringement activities to April 28, 2023, when it first sent a cease and desist notice to defendant No. 2 concerning the mark "Glucospoon-D." Subsequent reminders and notices were sent to defendants No. 1 and 2 over the following months, including in May 2023. Despite the defendants' reply in July 2023 dismissing the plaintiff’s claims, the alleged infringement continued, particularly online on third-party websites such as IndiaMart and Trade India. The plaintiff then sent fresh cease and desist notices in 2024 and even secured a signed, notarized undertaking from defendant No. 1 in July 2024 to refrain from infringing activities. Nonetheless, the defendants allegedly continued infringement and sales of products bearing the impugned marks up to December 2024, including offering the infringing products to the plaintiff’s legal counsel via WhatsApp.

The plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants’ use of the infringing marks, delivery up and destruction of infringing goods, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, orders against online listings of the products, and a declaration that its trademarks were well-known within the meaning of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Concurrently, the plaintiff sought interim injunctions restraining defendants from further use of the infringing marks during the pendency of the suit.

### Dispute

The defendants contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the mandatory pre-institution mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which requires parties in commercial disputes to attempt mediation before filing suit unless urgent interim relief is sought and justified. Defendants argued that the failure to exhaust this remedy before filing the suit warranted rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The defendants contended the plaintiff’s claim for urgent interim relief was unfounded and merely a tactic to bypass the mandatory mediation requirement.

The plaintiff responded that the suit was filed with a prayer for urgent relief justified by ongoing trademark violations, particularly the recent infringing activities in December 2024, and thus pre-litigation mediation was not necessary.

### Reasoning

The Court carefully examined the pleadings, the chronology of events, and relevant Supreme Court precedents to assess whether the plaintiff was justified in bypassing pre-institution mediation under Section 12A.

The Court noted that while the plaintiff alleged ongoing infringement recent as December 2024, the original cause of action arose in April 2023, and there was practically no qualitative or significant change in the situation between April 2023 and the filing of the suit. The defendants' use of similar marks was continuous throughout this period and had been repeatedly notified by cease and desist notices.

The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Patil Automation (2022), Yamini Manohar (2024), and Dhanbad Fuels (2025), which established the mandatory nature of Section 12A mediation and clarified the criteria for claiming urgent interim relief as an exception. These rulings assert that urgent interim relief is only justified if the plaint and facts demonstrate such genuine urgency that bypassing mediation is warranted.

The Court observed the plaint and the accompanying application for urgent relief were silent on why the plaintiff required urgent relief at the time of filing without mediation. Merely filing an interim injunction application is insufficient; the court must holistically examine if the urgency is bona fide or a mask to avoid the mediation mandate.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim for urgent interim relief lacked substantiation of any new exigency since the initial cause of action. As a result, the bypassing of pre-litigation mediation was not justified. The plaintiff’s application for urgent relief was viewed as a camouflage tactic to circumvent the mandatory mediation provision.

The Court held that non-grant of urgent relief after consideration does not authorize filing the suit without complying with Section 12A. The plaintiff’s failure to comply with mandatory pre-institution mediation was grounds for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC, as supported by Supreme Court rulings.

### Decision

The Court allowed the defendants’ application seeking rejection of the plaint. The plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the CPC due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Costs were made easy, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

The Court clarified that this order was independent of whether urgent relief was granted or not and emphasized the court’s duty to prevent misuse of the urgent relief exception to bypass mandatory mediation.

***

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