Loreal SA Vs. Vekariya Nikunj

Delhi High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint to Include Trademark Infringement Post Registration

Loreal SA Vs. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai: 13.07.2026:CM(M)-IPD 21/2026: 2026:DHC:5627: Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner adopted the trademark Garnier Bright Complete and its unique trade dress in September 2020 for facial and cosmetic products. Discovering that the respondents were manufacturing and selling identical cosmetic items under confusingly similar marks like Garuda Bright Complete 30x and 6 Drops Bright Complete 3x, the petitioner filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction based on passing off and dilution. The Trial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction on 16.05.2024. 

While the litigation was ongoing, the petitioner trademark application was granted registration on 20.04.2025. The petitioner then moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01.07.2025 to add the factum of registration and the statutory relief of infringement. The Trial Court dismissed this application on 10.02.2026 on the ground that the original plaint lacked assertions about the pending application and that registration formed a completely separate cause of action. This prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.

Dipute before Court

The central issue before the Court was whether a plaintiff who initially filed a suit for passing off can be allowed to amend the plaint to add a claim for trademark infringement when the underlying trademark gets registered during the pendency of the legal proceedings.

Reasoning and discussion of Judge

The Judge observed that procedural rules exist to secure the ends of justice rather than entrap litigants in technicalities. Under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy should be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. 

The Court noted that the action for trademark infringement arose out of the exact same set of facts, competing marks, and cosmetic products as the initial passing off claim. Rejecting the amendment would force the petitioner to launch separate proceedings, leading to an unnecessary multiplicity of suits. The subsequent event of registration directly enhanced the petitioner's rights, and the omission of any mention of the pending application in the initial plaint did not alter the core structure of the original grievance.

Decision

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2026. The application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed, and the Trial Court was directed to take the amended plaint on record and proceed in accordance with the law.

Important legal priciple held

An action for passing off can be effectively telescoped into an action for trademark infringement via a plaint amendment if the registration of the trademark is obtained during the pendency of the suit, provided the basic factual matrix, rival marks, and products remain identical.

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

Incorporation of Infringement Relief on the basis Trademark Registration which was filed post filing of Passing off Suit

Introduction:

The integration of subsequent statutory rights into an ongoing common law lawsuit forms an essential aspect of efficient intellectual property litigation. The High Court of Delhi recently dealt with this interface, evaluating whether a plaintiff can transition a passing off lawsuit into a trademark infringement action midway through the litigation. The ruling reaffirms a strong judicial preference for substantive justice over rigid technicalities, clearing the path for litigants to consolidate their evolving statutory claims without facing the burden of multiple parallel lawsuits.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The case originated when the petitioner adopted the mark Garnier Bright Complete along with its distinctive trade dress in September 2020 for a variety of cosmetic and skincare products. Over years of promotion, the petitioner asserted the establishment of substantial goodwill. 

The dispute arose when the respondents entered the market with identical skincare products bearing the marks Garuda Bright Complete 30x and 6 Drops Bright Complete 3x, causing market confusion. To protect its common law rights, the petitioner filed a commercial suit in 2024 for passing off and dilution, securing an ex parte ad interim injunction on 16.05.2024. 

During the pendency of this litigation, the petitioner trademark application number 6405978 in Class 03, which had been filed on 26.04.2024, was formally registered on 20.04.2025. 

Seeking to update the litigation with this statutory development, the petitioner filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 01.07.2025 to introduce claims and reliefs for trademark infringement. The Trial Court, however, dismissed the application on 10.02.2026, stating that the original plaint did not mention the pendency of the application and that the registration introduced an entirely new cause of action with distinct legal parameters.

Dispute Before the Court

The core legal question required the determination of whether a pending passing off suit can be amended to incorporate a new claim for trademark infringement after the statutory registration is granted during the lifespan of the suit. 

The petitioner argued that the competing marks, products, and operational facts remained exactly the same, meaning that denying the amendment would merely create an avoidable multiplicity of proceedings. 

Conversely, the responding parties contended that because the original plaint contained no reference to the pending registration, the grant of registration constituted a separate and distinct cause of action that could not automatically merge into the ongoing litigation.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court focused its analysis on the cardinal real controversy test governing amendments under the Code of Civil Procedure. It emphasized that procedural frameworks are designed to facilitate the administration of justice and should not be applied in a hyper-technical manner to defeat legitimate claims. The Court observed that when a cause of action or an enhancement of rights arises from events occurring during the pendency of a suit, amendments ought to be granted liberally, provided the basic structure and complexion of the case remain unaltered. 

The analysis heavily relied on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 385, which ruled that courts must take notice of subsequent events to shorten litigation, preserve the rights of the parties, and subserve the ends of justice. 

Additionally, the Court invoked the ruling in Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v. Raj Kumar Jain Trading as M/s. Bholaram Puranmall and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7537, alongside the Division Bench precedent in Usha International and Another v. Usha Television Limited, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 306. 

These precedents collectively establish that the fundamental principles of passing off and trademark infringement are inherently similar, allowing a passing off action to be easily telescoped into an infringement action. Since both claims in this dispute rested upon the exact same marks and products, refusing the amendment would run counter to the objectives of judicial economy, forced the plaintiff to file an entirely fresh suit, and needlessly prolonged the resolution of the conflict.

Final Decision of the Court

The High Court set aside and quashed the impugned order dated 10.02.2026 passed by the learned District Judge. The petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was fully allowed. The Court directed the Trial Court to take the amended plaint on record and proceed with the matter, effectively combining the passing off and trademark infringement claims into a single trial. The petition and all associated miscellaneous applications were formally disposed of.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment confirms that the acquisition of a trademark registration during the pendency of a passing off suit constitutes a significant subsequent event that justifies an amendment of the plaint. It settles the rule that an action for passing off can be legally telescoped into an action for trademark infringement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the underlying factual matrix, rival marks, and products remain the same. This approach curtails the multiplicity of proceedings, ensures judicial economy, and allows intellectual property owners to seamlessly upgrade their pleadings from common law remedies to statutory protections.

Title of the Case: Loreal SA Vs. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 13th July, 2026

Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 21/2026 

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5627

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

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

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

Headnote of the Judgment:

In Loreal SA v. Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors., the High Court of Delhi reviewed a Trial Court order that had rejected the petitioner's application to amend its passing off plaint to incorporate a trademark infringement claim after its mark matured into registration during the pendency of the suit. The High Court held that because passing off and infringement claims share an identical factual matrix, rival marks, and products, the subsequent registration is a material supervening event. Allowing the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure serves the interest of justice by preventing a multiplicity of suits. The High Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the amendment.

Suggested SEO Tags:

Delhi High Court, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, Plaint Amendment, Loreal SA, Garnier Bright Complete, Intellectual Property Rights, Trademark Registration, Commercial Suit, High Court of Delhi Judgment, Civil Procedure India, Subsequent Events Amendment, Judicial Economy, Multiplicity of Suits, Trade Dress Protection, Intellectual Property Litigation, Deceptively Similar Marks, Legal News India, Commercial Courts Act, Law of Trademarks, Indian Judiciary, Pravesh Narula Case, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Case, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Suggested SEO Titles:

 1. Delhi High Court on Amending Passing Off Plaint to Trademark Infringement

 2. Scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC in Trademark Suits: A Comprehensive Analysis

 3. Loreal SA v Vekariya Nikunj: Delhi High Court Allows Plaint Amendment Post Registration

 4. Telescoping Passing Off into Trademark Infringement Actions: Delhi HC Jurisprudence

 5. Understanding Plaint Amendments for Subsequent Trademark Registration in India

 6. Delhi High Court Minimizes Procedural Hurdles in Trademark Amendments

 7. Judicial Economy and Plaint Amendments: The Loreal SA Judgment Explained

 8. How Subsequent Trademark Registration Affects Pending Passing Off Lawsuits

 9. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and Intellectual Property Rights: Recent Trends

 10. Delhi High Court Jurisprudence on Multiplicity of Suits in Trademark Law