Introduction
The case of Dabur India Limited v. Marico Limited and Anr. before the High Court of Delhi concerns an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner, Dabur India Limited, sought permission to amend certain averments in its cancellation petitions filed against the trademark registrations of Marico Limited. The dispute primarily arose because of alleged inconsistencies in the pleadings of Dabur, where certain paragraphs in the cancellation petition admitted deceptive similarity of trademarks, contrary to its established stand in earlier proceedings that the marks were in fact dissimilar. The central legal question revolved around whether such inadvertent admissions could be corrected through amendment or whether they constituted binding admissions, thereby conferring vested rights on the respondent.
Factual Background
The dispute finds its origins in the commercial rivalry between Dabur India Limited and Marico Limited concerning their respective trademarks "COOL KING" and "REDKING." Marico alleged that Dabur’s mark was deceptively similar to its mark and initiated a commercial suit, CS(COMM) 303/2023, before the Delhi High Court. In that suit, Dabur unequivocally took the stand that the two marks were dissimilar, both in its oral submissions on 11 May 2023 and later through its written statement and reply to the injunction application filed on 10 July 2023.
Subsequently, Dabur filed cancellation petitions in August 2024 seeking cancellation of Marico’s trademark registration no. 5879763 under Class 03. However, due to inadvertent drafting errors, Dabur’s pleadings in paragraphs 15, 17, and 18 of the cancellation petitions wrongly recorded that Dabur’s mark was “deceptively similar” to Marico’s mark, a position contrary to its earlier stance in the commercial suit. Upon realizing this inconsistency, Dabur promptly filed amendment applications in October 2024 to bring its pleadings in line with its earlier categorical position that the marks were not deceptively similar.
Procedural Background
In the cancellation petitions filed in August 2024, Dabur sought cancellation of Marico’s trademark on grounds under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, before Marico filed its reply, Dabur discovered the drafting inconsistencies. Consequently, applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC were moved in October 2024 for amendment.
Marico opposed the amendment, contending that the statements in the original petition constituted binding admissions, which Dabur could not now retract. It argued that the admissions created vested rights in its favour under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Simultaneously, Marico sought condonation of delay in filing its reply to the cancellation petition. Both sets of applications came up before the Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court.
Core Dispute
The primary dispute in this case centered on whether Dabur could be allowed to amend its cancellation petitions to delete and replace inconsistent averments that had inadvertently admitted deceptive similarity of marks. The secondary but related issue was whether such admissions, even if erroneous, could be withdrawn by amendment, or whether they constituted binding admissions preventing Dabur from altering its stand.
Discussion on Judgments
The petitioner, Dabur, relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166, wherein the Court had held that errors committed by a lawyer in drafting pleadings ought to be permitted to be corrected if they do not prejudice the other side. Dabur argued that its amendment merely sought to bring consistency with its earlier written statement and reply in CS(COMM) 303/2023, where it had always maintained that the marks were dissimilar.
On the other hand, Marico relied on Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and Others, (1998) 1 SCC 278, where the Supreme Court emphasized that admissions made in pleadings could not ordinarily be withdrawn through amendment. It also cited Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, para 71, to reinforce the principle that admissions in pleadings cannot be lightly disregarded or retracted, as they confer corresponding rights upon the opposing party.
Marico argued that since Dabur’s cancellation petitions had admitted deceptive similarity, those statements created a vested right in its favour, and any attempt to retract them should not be permitted.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Court carefully considered the chronology of pleadings and submissions made by Dabur in earlier proceedings. It noted that in CS(COMM) 303/2023, Dabur had categorically asserted that its mark was dissimilar to Marico’s mark, both orally and in its written statement and reply to the injunction application filed in July 2023. This position was reiterated in the amended written statement filed in October 2024.
The Court observed that the impugned averments in the cancellation petitions, filed later in August 2024, were inconsistent with Dabur’s established stand and were incongruous. The Court accepted Dabur’s explanation that the inconsistency was a result of a drafting error by its counsel. Importantly, the Court reasoned that findings on deceptive similarity are judicial determinations based on evidence and not solely on admissions or pleadings of parties. Therefore, Marico could not claim vested rights merely because of inadvertent statements in Dabur’s petition.
The Court emphasized that since the amendment application was filed promptly in October 2024, even before Marico filed its reply, there was no prejudice caused to Marico. Applying the principle laid down in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi, the Court held that it was appropriate to allow the amendment to correct the error.
Final Decision
The Court allowed Dabur’s amendment applications in all three cancellation petitions, subject to payment of consolidated costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. It directed that the amended petitions be taken on record. The Court also condoned Marico’s delay of 52 days in filing its reply and granted it liberty to file replies to the amended petitions within six weeks, with rejoinders to be filed within four weeks thereafter.
Law Settled in This Case
This case settles the principle that inadvertent and inconsistent admissions in pleadings, particularly when contrary to an earlier established stand, may be permitted to be amended if such amendments are sought promptly and without causing prejudice to the opposing party. Admissions in pleadings are important but cannot be construed as irrevocable when they are demonstrably inconsistent with prior categorical assertions made on oath in related proceedings. Courts will allow amendments to bring consistency in pleadings, especially when issues like deceptive similarity are judicially determined on evidence rather than solely on admissions.
Case Details
Case Title: Dabur India Limited Vs. Marico Limited & Anr.
Date of Order: 20 August 2025
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024, 173/2024, 174/2024
Neutral Citation: Not provided in order
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
Suggested Titles for Publication in Law Journal
-
Amendment of Inadvertent Admissions in Trademark Pleadings: Dabur v. Marico
-
Delhi High Court on Pleading Inconsistencies and Trademark Disputes
-
Admissions in Pleadings and Their Withdrawal: A Study of Dabur India Limited v. Marico Limited
-
Drafting Errors and Rectification under Order VI Rule 17 CPC: Judicial Approach in Trademark Cases
-
Balancing Admissions and Fairness in Trademark Litigation: Lessons from Dabur v. Marico
-
Consistency in Trademark Pleadings: Delhi High Court’s Perspective in Dabur v. Marico
-
Deceptive Similarity, Admissions, and Amendments: Legal Insights from Dabur v. Marico
Would you like me to also prepare a comparative table of the judgments cited by both parties (with citation, context, and application in this case) for easy reference in your publication draft?
