Dindayal Industries Ltd., a company manufacturing ayurvedic products, claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the trademark "DINDAYAL" and its variants since 1927, with registrations for composite marks like "DINDAYAL Aushadhi Pvt. Ltd." in multiple classes, asserting substantial goodwill through high turnover, wide consumer base, and promotions. Defendants Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan, operating since 2014 under similar marks like "DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN", were accused of infringement and passing off by copying the mark and product range to exploit plaintiff's reputation. Plaintiff filed suit in 2021 seeking permanent injunction, obtained ex-parte ad-interim injunction in January 2022 along with local commissioner appointment, but the trial court dismissed the interim application in September 2023 after considering defendants' claims of independent adoption from family name and licenses. Plaintiff appealed to Delhi High Court, which analyzed prior use, finding "DINDAYAL" as dominant essential element in plaintiff's composites amounting to standalone use, established prima facie goodwill via sales and reach, applied stricter confusion standard for medicinal goods citing Cadila, determined deceptive similarity and misrepresentation leading to passing off, rejected delay/acquiescence defenses due to plaintiff's vigilant oppositions and notices citing Midas Hygiene, held balance of convenience favored plaintiff as longer-established user, and found trial court erred in relying on copyright NOC/search certificates as irrelevant to trademark rights. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted interim injunction restraining defendants from using the impugned marks pending suit.
- In a composite trademark, the dominant and essential element functions as the source identifier, and continuous use of the composite amounts to prior use of that essential mark notwithstanding absence of standalone use: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 39.
- A prima facie case of goodwill and reputation for passing off can be established through evidence of long use, substantial turnover, wide product range, consumer base, and marketing investments, and a single year's financial downturn does not displace sustained market presence: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 40.
- A stricter standard applies to assess confusing similarity for marks relating to medicinal products due to potential harmful consequences, requiring lesser proof: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 41 (citing Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73).
- Passing off requires misrepresentation in trade calculated to deceive consumers and cause foreseeable damage to another's goodwill: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 42.
- Delay or laches does not defeat an injunction claim where adoption is prima facie dishonest: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 44 (citing Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90).
- Acquiescence is negated if the proprietor has opposed registration and issued notices, placing continued use at infringer's peril: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 45.
- Balance of convenience favors the prior long-established user with demonstrated goodwill over recent entrants lacking comparable evidence: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 47.
- Copyright NOC under Section 45(1) of Copyright Act, 1957, search certificates, or label approvals are not determinative of trademark rights or evidence against infringement/passing off: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr., FAO (COMM) 15/2024, para 48.
Case Title: Dindayal Industries Ltd. Vs Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & Anr. Order date: 22.12.2025 Case Number: FAO (COMM) 15/2024 & CM APPL. 46503/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11707-DB Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise 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]
