Case Title: Jyothy Labs Limited v. Gautam Kumar & Anr. Order Date: 26.08.2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 893/2025 Neutral Citation: Not specified Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Summary of the Case
Facts
Jyothy Labs Limited (the plaintiff) is a company that markets and sells household essentials, including its flagship product, the 'MAXO GENIUS MACHINE' mosquito repellent machine and refills (launched in 2000). This product is sold under the registered trademark 'MAXO' (in Classes 5, 7, 9, 11, and 21 since 18.07.2000), with a copyright registration (No. A-149826/2023 dated 14.12.2023) for the artwork on the packaging (trade dress), and design registrations (Nos. 332182-001 dated 20.08.2020; 375296-001 and 375295-001 dated 09.12.2022) for the bottle/refill shape. The plaintiff has invested heavily in promotion, achieving high sales through online and offline channels, including collaborations with celebrities.
The defendants (Gautam Kumar as Defendant No. 1 and Anr. as No. 2) are involved in manufacturing and selling spying cameras and digital gadgets. In May 2025, the plaintiff learned that the defendants were tampering with genuine 'MAXO' machines by embedding spy cameras inside them, along with refills containing mosquito repellent liquid, and selling these as "Infringing Products" on platforms like YouTube (@smarsofficial8875), Amazon, Flipkart, and their websites (www.smars.in and www.spyimporter.in). An investigator purchased samples from the defendants' listings (paying ₹2,999 on smars.in, ₹3,860 and ₹3,425 on Amazon/Flipkart via UPI/Paytm), confirming delivery of tampered products to New Delhi on 21-22.05.2025. The defendants concealed the 'MAXO' mark on online listings but delivered products with visible 'MAXO' branding and trade dress, misleading buyers into thinking they were authorized plaintiff products.
Dispute
The main issue is trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of the 'MAXO' mark and trade dress, unfair trade practices, unfair competition, disparagement, and false trade description. The plaintiff argues that the defendants' tampering alters the product's condition and functionality (from mosquito repellent to spy device), violating Sections 29, 30(3), and 30(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (no exhaustion under Section 30(2)(d) due to impairment and legitimate opposition reasons). This creates confusion, misrepresents origin/quality, and exposes the plaintiff to liability for illegal privacy breaches (e.g., sting operations), damaging its reputation and goodwill. The defendants' deliberate concealment online shows bad faith, leading to unjust enrichment from the plaintiff's brand. The suit seeks permanent injunction, damages, accounts, and delivery up. Defendants did not appear.
Decision
The court disposed of interlocutory applications (I.As.) as follows:
- I.A. 20841/2025 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC as applicable to Commercial Courts Act, 2015): Allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents per Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
- I.A. 20842/2025 (exemption): Granted, subject to just exceptions.
- I.A. 20843/2025 (under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015): Exempted pre-institution mediation due to urgent interim relief, citing Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382).
- I.A. 20844/2025 (under Sections 149 and 151 CPC): Granted four weeks to pay court fees.
For the main suit (CS(COMM) 893/2025): Plaint registered as suit. Summons issued to defendants via all modes on process fee payment. Written statements due within 30 days of summons receipt, with affidavits of admission/denial of plaintiff's documents (failure means not taken on record). Plaintiff at liberty to file replications within 30 days of written statements, with similar affidavits for defendants' documents. Reliance on documents not in possession requires details/source in list. Inspection per Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 timelines. List before Joint Registrar on 15.10.2025 for service/pleadings completion.
For I.A. 20840/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC): After reviewing submissions, pleadings, and evidence, the court found a prima facie case. Defendants' tampering impairs the product, misappropriates the 'MAXO' mark/trade dress, and alters origin (not covered by Trade Marks Act exhaustion due to changes under Section 30(3)/(4)). Online concealment but visible delivery shows mala fides; infringing products risk illegal use, harming plaintiff's reputation irreparably. Balance of convenience favors plaintiff; no prejudice to defendants. Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted until next hearing: Defendants, assignees, affiliates, licensees, distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, agents restrained from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling, advertising, or dealing in infringing products (spy cameras in 'MAXO' machines/refills or similar bearing 'MAXO'/deceptively similar marks, infringing trademark/copyright A-149826/2023). Defendants to remove all infringing listings/offers/advertisements.
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
