In this commercial suit filed by Colgate Palmolive in October 2019, the plaintiffs initially sought permanent injunction against Dabur India for disparaging Colgate Strong Teeth toothpaste by showing its red-blue packaging in advertisements and making statements discouraging use of fluoride-containing toothpastes. An ex-parte interim injunction was granted on 10.10.2019. After modification of the advertisement by Dabur, further proceedings continued. In March-April 2025, Dabur published fresh print advertisements highlighting health risks of excessive fluoride intake. Colgate filed I.A. 10040/2025 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to specifically challenge these 2025 advertisements. The Court held that the issue of generic/ingredient disparagement of fluoride toothpastes was already pleaded in the original plaint (paras 21-33 & prayer 63(v)), hence no amendment of plaint was necessary; the 2025 advertisements are merely a continuation/variation of the same fluoride awareness campaign started in 2019 and are covered within existing pleadings. The amendment application was rejected as it was not required, belated (after 6 years), procedurally deficient, and contrary to the objective of expeditious trial under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the Court directed the 2025 advertisements to be taken on record as additional documents supporting the existing cause of action.
Crisp points of law settled in the case
Where the issue of ingredient/class disparagement is already pleaded in the original plaint and forms part of the existing cause of action, there is no legal necessity to amend the plaint to challenge subsequent variations/advertisements on the same theme; such advertisements can be taken on record as additional documents. (Para 18, 18.1, 26-28)
Amendment of plaint after significant delay (6 years) which is not necessary for adjudication, lacks sufficient reasoning, and is procedurally deficient, is liable to be rejected. (Para 20, 20.4, 24-25)
Liberal approach to amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not mean amendment should be allowed when it serves no purpose and defeats the object of expeditious disposal under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Para 22-23)
Withdrawal of certain interim applications without prejudice to rights in pending applications does not create estoppel against raising the same substantive issue which remains sub-judice in the main pleadings. (Para 17, 17.1-17.5)
Case Details
Case Title : Colgate Palmolive Company Vs Dabur India Ltd.
Order Date : 12th January, 2026
Case Number : CS(COMM) 567/2019 (I.A. No.10040/2025 & connected I.As.)
Neutral Citation : 2026:DHC:0242
Court : High Court of Delhi
Judge : Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
