### Introduction
The case of M/s Vaidya Rishi India Health Private Limited & Anr. vs Suresh Dutt Parashar & Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, addresses a pivotal issue in trademark law concerning the maintainability of infringement actions against a registered trademark. This appeal, filed under FAO (COMM) 122/2024, challenges an interim injunction granted by a lower court, raising questions about the legal framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, grappled with conflicting precedents, ultimately referring the matter to a larger Bench for resolution, highlighting the evolving nature of trademark jurisprudence in India.
### Factual Background
The appellants, M/s Vaidya Rishi India Health Private Limited and another, are entities involved in the health and wellness sector, claiming rights to a trademark registered for specific goods or services. The respondents, Suresh Dutt Parashar and others, are also registered proprietors of a similar or identical trademark, used in connection with their own products or services. The dispute arose when the appellants alleged that the respondents' use of the registered mark infringed their rights, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of their brand. The respondents countered that their registration conferred exclusive rights, rendering the appellants' infringement claim untenable. The lower court’s interim order restrained the respondents, prompting this appeal.
### Procedural Background
The respondents initially filed a suit before the Commercial Court, seeking relief against the appellants for trademark infringement and passing off. On an unspecified date, the Commercial Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, restraining the appellants from using the disputed mark. The appellants challenged this order by filing FAO (COMM) 122/2024, along with CM APPLs. 36142/2024 and 36143/2024 for stay and other reliefs, before the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench heard the matter, with arguments focusing on the legal viability of infringement actions against registered trademarks. The court delivered an oral judgment on August 7, 2025, addressing the jurisdictional and substantive issues.
### Core Dispute
The central contention is whether an infringement action can be maintained against a registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when both parties hold valid registrations for similar or identical marks. The appellants argue that the respondents' use violates their registered rights, justifying the injunction, while the respondents assert that their registration provides a statutory defense against infringement claims. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of Sections 28 and 30 of the Act, which grant exclusive rights to registered proprietors but also allow use of registered marks under certain conditions, creating a legal ambiguity that the court must resolve.
### Discussion on Judgments
The court and parties referenced several key precedents to frame their arguments. The appellants relied on Raj Kumar Prasad v Abbott Healthcare (P) Ltd., (2014) 60 PTC 51, where a Division Bench upheld the maintainability of infringement suits against registered trademarks, supporting their claim for interim relief. They also cited Corza International v Future Bath Products (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153, which followed Raj Kumar Prasad, reinforcing the possibility of injunctions in such cases. The respondents did not cite specific judgments but implied reliance on the statutory protection under Section 28 of the Act. The court noted Abros Sports International (P) Ltd v Ashish Bansal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3410, where a coordinate Bench, including Justice C. Hari Shankar, doubted Raj Kumar Prasad’s correctness and referred the issue to a larger Bench, indicating a divergence in judicial opinion that influenced the present decision.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice C. Hari Shankar, delivering the oral judgment, began with a prefatory note acknowledging the inconsistency in judicial approaches to infringement actions against registered trademarks. The judge traced the evolution of the law, highlighting the Division Bench decisions in Raj Kumar Prasad and Corza International, which permitted such actions, against the backdrop of Abros Sports, which questioned their legal foundation. The court analyzed Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which confers exclusive rights to registered proprietors, and Section 30, which allows use of registered marks if not likely to cause confusion. The judge expressed reservations about the logic of allowing infringement suits between registered proprietors, suggesting that such disputes might be better addressed through rectification proceedings under Section 57 or passing off actions. Given the unresolved reference in Abros Sports, the court deemed it prudent to await a larger Bench’s clarification.
### Final Decision
The High Court disposed of FAO (COMM) 122/2024 by staying the lower court’s interim injunction pending the outcome of the reference in Abros Sports International (P) Ltd v Ashish Bansal. The court directed that the matter be listed for further hearing after the larger Bench’s decision, ensuring that the appellants’ rights are preserved without prejudice. CM APPLs. 36142/2024 and 36143/2024 were also disposed of in light of this stay, with liberty granted to the parties to seek revival if necessary.
### Law Settled in This Case
This judgment does not conclusively settle the law but underscores the uncertainty surrounding infringement actions against registered trademarks. It reaffirms the need for a larger Bench to resolve the conflict between Raj Kumar Prasad and Abros Sports, suggesting that until clarified, interim reliefs in such cases should be deferred. The decision highlights the potential mismatch between statutory rights under Sections 28 and 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the judicial trend of entertaining infringement suits, paving the way for a definitive ruling on the subject.
### Case Details
Case Title: M/s Vaidya Rishi India Health Private Limited & Anr. vs Suresh Dutt Parashar & Ors.
Date of Order: 07 August, 2025
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 122/2024, CM APPLs. 36142/2024 & 36143/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:56788
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla
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
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Infringement Against Registered Trademarks: The Vaidya Rishi Case and Judicial Uncertainty
2. Statutory Rights vs. Judicial Precedents: Analyzing FAO (COMM) 122/2024
3. The Abros Sports Reference: Implications for Trademark Infringement Law
4. Conflicting Bench Decisions: The Delhi High Court’s Approach in Vaidya Rishi v. Parashar
5. Interim Injunctions and Registered Marks: Lessons from the Vaidya Rishi Appeal
6. Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act: A Re-examination in the Vaidya Rishi Dispute
7. Passing Off or Infringement: Navigating Trademark Disputes in India
8. Larger Bench Referral: The Future of Trademark Litigation Post-Vaidya Rishi
