Innovative Derma Care sells skin care products under the trademark Clariwash and sued Vardhaman Skincare Private Limited and another company in 2018 after discovering they were selling face wash under the same name.
The commercial suit in the trial court at Tis Hazari dragged on for nearly six years with mediation attempts, framing of issues in February 2025, and the plaintiff first listing only its owner as a witness before successfully adding three more witnesses in March 2025. In April 2025 the plaintiff filed another application to add two extra witnesses — Mr Amit Chopra who had been unwell and Mr Gulshan Kumar who travels frequently for work — but the trial court rejected it, noting the case was already the oldest pending matter, the plaintiff had already increased its witnesses from one to four, and there was no strong reason why these two names could not have been included earlier.
The plaintiff then approached the High Court under Article 227 claiming the law allows parties to bring their own witnesses without prior permission if evidence is still open and citing a Supreme Court ruling that technical delays should not block important witnesses.
The High Court examined the records, found no medical proof or other documents to support the excuses of illness and travel, observed that the names could have been listed much earlier anyway, and agreed with the trial court that the plaintiff itself was causing the delay in a six-year-old case by repeatedly expanding its witness list.
Therefore on 28 February 2026 the High Court dismissed the petition, refused to interfere with the trial court’s order, and held that the two additional witnesses cannot be examined so the suit can proceed without further postponement.
Title: Innovative Derma Care Vs Vardhman Sakincare Pvt. Ltd.:28.02.2026:CM(M)-IPD 47/2025, 2026:DHC:1829: Tejas Karia, H.J..
Disclaimer: Do not treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment