The High Court of Delhi, in a decision dated March 26, 2025, addressed an appeal filed by Imax Healthcare Private Limited and another appellant against an order of the District Judge (Commercial) dated December 19, 2024, which granted an interim injunction to Max Healthcare Institute Limited under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The case, registered as FAO (COMM) 60/2025, stemmed from a trademark dispute in CS (Comm) 247/2024, where Max Healthcare, the respondent, alleged infringement of its registered "MAX" trademarks by the appellants’ use of "IMAX" in healthcare services. The Division Bench, presided over by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, set aside the impugned order, finding that the Commercial Court had misinterpreted an earlier High Court directive and failed to evaluate the merits of the injunction application. The matter was remanded for a fresh, expeditious decision, highlighting procedural rigor and the judiciary’s role in ensuring reasoned adjudication.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited, a well-established entity in India’s healthcare sector, has operated under the "MAX" brand for over two decades, securing multiple trademark registrations for composite marks incorporating "MAX" in relation to hospital and healthcare services. The respondent’s marks, including "MAX HEALTHCARE," "MAX HOSPITAL," and others, have been judicially recognized as "well-known" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a status affirmed in prior litigation, notably CS (COMM) 603/23, where a revenue of Rs. 185,446 lakhs in 2021 underscored its market prominence. This recognition was further reinforced in Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. v. Sahrudya Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (2019 SCC OnLine Del 9036), where the High Court upheld the deceptive similarity of "MAXCURE" to "MAX," granting an injunction. Max Healthcare has a history of vigilantly protecting its intellectual property, securing over 21 injunctions against third parties using similar marks, such as "Max Care Hospitals" across various cities.
The dispute with Imax Healthcare Private Limited emerged when Max Healthcare filed a suit alleging that the appellants’ use of "IMAX" infringed its registered trademarks and misled the public into associating Imax’s services with its own. Accompanying the suit was an application for an interlocutory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. On May 15, 2024, the Commercial Court initially rejected this application, reasoning that Max Healthcare’s registrations were for composite marks rather than the standalone word "MAX," and that the appellants’ operations in Tamil Nadu, where Max had no presence, precluded confusion. The court also noted structural differences—Max being a limited company and Imax a private limited company—as mitigating deception risks. Dissatisfied, Max Healthcare appealed to the High Court in FAO (Comm) 117/2024.
On September 25, 2024, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the May 15 order. It criticized the Commercial Court’s reasoning, rejecting the relevance of corporate structure to trademark infringement and dismissing the territorial argument in light of Max’s online presence and allegations of affected sales nationwide. The court also clarified that the discretionary nature of injunctions did not permit arbitrary denial when a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury were established. Quoting extensively from Sahrudya Healthcare and the decree in CS (COMM) 603/23, the Bench underscored "MAX" as a prominent, non-generic mark in healthcare, likely to cause confusion when adopted by others in the same field. The matter was remanded to the Commercial Court for a fresh decision, with all merits-based contentions left open.
The impugned order of December 19, 2024, arose from this remand. The Commercial Court, now presided by a different judge, granted the injunction, restraining Imax Healthcare, its affiliates, and agents from using "IMAX" or any phonetically or visually similar mark until the suit’s disposal. However, the court’s reasoning was sparse, relying heavily on the High Court’s September 25 observations rather than independently assessing the merits. It noted the appellants’ argument that other registered marks like "IMAXX HAIR" and "Pathmax" coexisted with "MAX," but dismissed it as already addressed by the High Court, concluding that further deliberation was unnecessary. The court interpreted the prior judgment as mandating an injunction to "implement" its observations, a stance that prompted the present appeal by Imax Healthcare.
In FAO (COMM) 60/2025, the Division Bench found this approach fundamentally flawed. Justice C. Hari Shankar, authoring the oral order, emphasized that the September 25 judgment did not foreclose the issue or dictate an outcome. Instead, it had revived the injunction application for a de novo consideration "in accordance with law," preserving both parties’ rights to argue their case. The Commercial Court’s cursory order, devoid of substantive analysis, misconstrued this directive as a command to grant relief, neglecting its duty to evaluate factors like prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. The Bench expressed dismay at this misapplication, noting that the lower court had treated the High Court’s critique of the earlier refusal as a conclusive endorsement of Max Healthcare’s claims.
The appellants’ counsel, Mr. Parish Mishra, reiterated the coexistence of other "MAX"-based trademarks, suggesting Max Healthcare could not claim exclusivity. Conversely, Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, representing Max Healthcare, accused the appellants of submitting fabricated evidence, including a pre-COVID bill for a COVID test kit, and relying on material not presented earlier. The Bench refrained from opining on these submissions, leaving them for the Commercial Court to address. It stressed that a fresh adjudication must consider all contentions, including these allegations, to ensure a fair and reasoned outcome.
Setting aside the December 19 order, the High Court directed both parties to appear before the Commercial Court on April 3, 2025, for a re-evaluation of the injunction application. It urged the lower court to decide expeditiously—preferably within two weeks—uninfluenced by the impugned order’s conclusions. To streamline proceedings, both sides undertook not to seek adjournments, and the Bench requested the Commercial Court to defer a related contempt petition until the injunction issue was resolved. The order reserved the parties’ rights to challenge any future decision, maintaining procedural flexibility while emphasizing judicial efficiency.
The judgment reflects broader themes in trademark law and judicial oversight. It reaffirms that "MAX," as a prominent element in Max Healthcare’s marks, warrants protection against deceptive similarity, especially in healthcare, where consumer confusion carries significant consequences. The Bench’s reliance on prior rulings like Sahrudya Healthcare underscores the psychological reality of brand recognition—patients associate "MAX" with Max Healthcare, not its full composite marks or logos, particularly in urgent medical contexts. The decision also critiques territorial limitations in a digital and corporatized healthcare landscape, aligning with trends like medical tourism that transcend regional boundaries.
Procedurally, the ruling highlights the High Court’s supervisory role in ensuring lower courts adhere to remand directives. The Commercial Court’s failure to engage with merits—despite clear instructions—prompted a stern reminder of judicial responsibility. The Bench’s hope for future circumspection from the District Judge signals a call for diligence in exercising discretionary powers, reinforcing that such discretion must be reasoned, not arbitrary. By remanding the case with specific timelines, the court balanced fairness with the urgency inherent in commercial disputes.
In conclusion, the March 26, 2025, order in FAO (COMM) 60/2025 exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to protecting well-known trademarks while upholding procedural integrity. It leaves the substantive dispute unresolved, entrusting the Commercial Court with a fresh opportunity to weigh evidence and arguments, ensuring that the outcome—whatever it may be—rests on a solid legal foundation.
Complete Citation
- Case Name: Imax Healthcare Private Limited Vs Max Healthcare Institute Limited
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case Number: FAO (COMM) 60/2025
- Date of Decision: March 26, 2025
- Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2206
Full Citation:
