President and Fellows of Harvard College Vs Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks

Head Note of the Case:

Delhi High Court, in an appeal under Section 117 of the Patents Act, 1970, set aside the Controller’s order dated 25.08.2022 refusing Patent Application No. 201617000758 titled “SC-β CELLS AND COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING THE SAME”. The Court held that the impugned order was vitiated because the Controller failed to consider the amended claims filed by the appellant along with post-hearing written submissions. These amendments materially altered the nature of the claims — from a “composition” claim (non-native pancreatic β cell + pharmaceutically acceptable carriers) to a claim on the “non-native pancreatic β cell” per se. The Court clarified that when post-hearing amendments change the scope or character of the claims, the Controller is duty-bound to examine them afresh on all grounds (including Sections 3(j), 3(e), 10(4) and 10(5)) before refusing the application. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication within six months after granting a hearing, without prejudice to the merits of patentability of stem-cell-derived non-native pancreatic β cells.

Introduction

This is a significant patent appeal concerning the patentability of human stem-cell-derived pancreatic beta (SC-β) cells developed for potential cell-replacement therapy in diabetes. The appellant, President and Fellows of Harvard College, sought protection for a novel in-vitro generated “non-native” pancreatic β cell population that functionally mimics mature human beta cells but exhibits distinct gene-expression profiles, improved glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS), and mono-hormonal characteristics not found in nature. The Controller refused the application primarily on the grounds that the claimed subject-matter fell within the non-patentable exclusions under Section 3(j) (plants and animals in whole or any part thereof) and Section 3(e) (mere admixture), coupled with objections on clarity and sufficiency of disclosure under Sections 10(4) and 10(5). Instead of deciding the substantive patentability issues, the Delhi High Court focused on a procedural imperative: the mandatory duty of the Controller to consider post-hearing amendments that materially alter the claim set. The judgment, delivered on 28 March 2026 by Justice Tejas Karia, reinforces procedural fairness in patent examination and remands the application for fresh consideration.

Factual Background

The invention relates to methods, compositions, kits and agents for generating stem-cell-derived beta (SC-β) cells from human pluripotent stem cells. These SC-β cells are “non-native” — i.e., they share many features of endogenous mature pancreatic β cells (insulin production, glucose responsiveness) but differ in gene-expression profiles and certain functional aspects, making them structurally and functionally distinct from naturally occurring β cells. The technology solves a long-standing problem in regenerative medicine: earlier protocols produced only immature or abnormally functioning insulin-expressing cells that failed to secrete insulin appropriately in response to glucose levels.

Key priority dates:

First US provisional: 11.06.2013 (US 61/833,898)

Second US provisional: 28.03.2014 (US 61/972,272)

PCT application: 11.06.2014 (PCT/US2014/041992)

National phase Indian application: 08.01.2016 (No. 201617000758) filed with 29 claims.

On 08.01.2016, the appellant also filed Form-13 amending the claims. Request for examination was filed on 01.06.2017 with voluntary amendments. First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 28.02.2020. The appellant replied on 28.08.2020 with further amendments. Multiple hearing notices were issued; the final hearing occurred on 06.08.2021. Post-hearing written submissions dated 21.08.2021 included yet another set of amended claims. The Controller passed the impugned refusal order on 25.08.2022 under Section 15 of the Patents Act, holding the claims non-compliant with Sections 3(j), 3(e), 10(4) and 10(5).

Procedural Background

The appeal was filed under Section 117 of the Patents Act, 1970 read with Section 151 CPC before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court as C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022. The matter was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia. The Controller appeared through the Central Government Standing Counsel and the Assistant Controller (through VC). The appellant was represented by a team led by Dr. Satyapal Arora.

Dispute in Question

The core dispute before the High Court was whether the Controller’s refusal order was sustainable when it had (i) considered only the pre-hearing (original) set of claims, and (ii) failed to examine the materially amended claims filed along with post-hearing written submissions. Substantive questions — whether SC-β cells are excluded under Section 3(j) as “animals in whole or any part thereof”, whether the claims lack clarity/sufficiency, and whether they constitute a mere admixture under Section 3(e) — were not decided on merits. The procedural question was: does a Controller have a mandatory duty to consider post-hearing amendments that change the nature/scope of claims before finally refusing an application?

Arguments of Parties

Appellant’s Arguments (Harvard College):

The amended claims filed post-hearing shifted the primary claim from a “composition” (cell + carriers) to the “non-native pancreatic β cell” per se. The Controller ignored this change and decided the matter on the original claims alone.

The SC-β cells are man-made, non-naturally occurring constructs produced through a multi-step laboratory differentiation protocol involving technical human intervention. They do not occur in nature, are structurally and functionally distinct (different gene-expression profile, enhanced GSIS, mono-hormonal), and therefore fall outside Section 3(j).

Detailed definitions of “non-native” and supporting data on gene expression, crystalline insulin granules, and functional superiority are provided in the specification.

Precedents such as Imclone LLC (2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8397), BTS Research International (2025 SCC OnLine Cal 2943), and US Supreme Court decisions (Chakrabarty, Myriad) were cited to argue that genetically engineered or laboratory-created cellular products are patentable.

Corresponding patents have been granted in USA, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, etc.

In any event, the Controller’s failure to consider the amended claims is a glaring procedural error warranting remand.

Respondent’s (Controller’s) Arguments:

SC-β cells, even if generated in vitro, are biological derivatives of human/animal material and fall squarely within the Section 3(j) exclusion (“animals in whole or any part thereof”).

The terms “non-native”, “native”, and “gene expression profile” are vague and lack a clear standard, rendering the claims indefinite under Sections 10(4) and 10(5).

No synergy data or specific component ratios were disclosed for the claimed composition.

Foreign grants are not binding; Indian law applies a stricter construction of Section 3(j), especially for human/animal-derived material.

The amended claims were mentioned as “alternative set” but did not require fresh adjudication because the core objections (Section 3(j) and sufficiency) persisted.

Reasoning of the Judge (including different provisions of law and their context)

Justice Tejas Karia began by reproducing the complete set of original and amended claims side-by-side (para 14). He observed that the amendment fundamentally altered the claim structure: the principal claim no longer required “pharmaceutically acceptable carriers” but claimed the isolated non-native pancreatic β cell itself (with functional and structural limitations).

Key Legal Provisions and Concepts Explained:

Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970

Empowers the Controller to refuse or require amendment of an application after examination and hearing. The provision must be read with the principles of natural justice and the duty to consider all material placed on record.

Sections 10(4) and 10(5)

10(4): Requires the specification to fully and particularly describe the invention, enable a person skilled in the art to perform it, and disclose the best method.

10(5): Claims must be clear, succinct, and fairly based on the matter disclosed.

The Court noted that the Controller’s objections on clarity and sufficiency were framed entirely on the original “composition” claims.

Section 3(j)

Excludes “plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro-organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production and propagation of plants and animals.”

The Court did not decide whether SC-β cells fall within this exclusion but held that any such determination must be made only after examining the final set of claims.

Post-hearing amendments

The Patents Act and Rules permit voluntary amendments at any stage before grant (Section 57 read with Rule 81). When amendments are filed with written submissions after hearing and materially alter the claim scope/nature, the Controller cannot ignore them and decide on the pre-amendment claims.

Judgements relied upon by the Judge and their context

Jitendra Kohli v. The Controller of Patents, 2022:DHC:1904

The Delhi High Court held that failure to consider amended claims filed during proceedings is a “glaring error”. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after considering the amended claims on all grounds (novelty, inventive step, patentability).

Akebia Therapeutics INC v. The Controller of Patents and Designs, CMA(PT)/64/2024 dated 20.03.2025

When amendments change the nature of claims (e.g., from method to composition), the Controller must address the new set of claims. Rejection solely or substantially on the ground that claims were amended is not tenable. The matter was remanded with directions for a fresh hearing by a different officer.

The Judge applied these precedents verbatim, holding that the present case involved an identical procedural lapse: the impugned order was passed without considering the post-hearing amended claims that changed the claim from “composition” to the “cell” per se.

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed. The impugned order dated 25.08.2022 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Controller (preferably a different officer) for fresh consideration of the Subject Application in light of the amended claims filed with post-hearing written submissions. The Controller was directed to pass a reasoned order within six months after affording a hearing to the appellant. No observations were made on the merits of patentability (Sections 3(j), 3(e), sufficiency, etc.). A copy of the judgment was directed to be sent to the Controller General at llc-ipo@gov.in.

Concluding Note

The judgment is a procedural landmark in Indian patent law. It underscores that the Controller’s quasi-judicial function cannot be exercised mechanically or on an incomplete record. When an applicant files amended claims that materially alter the invention’s scope after the hearing, those amendments must be examined on their own merits. The decision protects applicants from arbitrary refusal while reiterating that substantive questions of patentability of advanced biotechnological inventions (such as stem-cell-derived β cells) require careful, claim-specific analysis under Section 3(j) and other provisions. It also signals to the Patent Office that post-hearing amendments are not cosmetic but can fundamentally reshape the examination.

Legal Point Settled in this Case (with clear explanation of legal concepts)

The judgment settles the following important propositions:

Mandatory duty to consider post-hearing amendments

When an applicant files amended claims along with written submissions after the hearing under Section 15, and those amendments change the nature or scope of the claims (e.g., from composition to product per se), the Controller is legally bound to examine the amended claims afresh on all statutory grounds before refusing the application. Ignoring them constitutes a “glaring error” and vitiates the order.

Nature of amendment vs. scope

Even if the overall inventive concept remains the same, a change in claim category (method → composition → product per se) is material and triggers fresh adjudication. This prevents the Controller from deciding on an obsolete claim set.

Remand as the appropriate remedy

When the order is vitiated by non-consideration of material amendments, the correct course is remand for de novo consideration rather than deciding the merits in appeal. No observations on patentability (especially complex Section 3(j) issues) should be made so that the Controller exercises independent discretion.

Interplay between Section 57 (amendment) and Section 15 (refusal)

Amendments are a statutory right. The Controller’s power to refuse cannot be exercised without first addressing the final set of claims placed on record.

These principles provide clear guidance to patent examiners, applicants, and the bar that procedural fairness in the grant/refusal process is non-negotiable, especially in cutting-edge fields like regenerative medicine and stem-cell technology.

Case Title: President and Fellows of Harvard College Vs Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks

Date of Order: 28 March 2026

Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 493/2022

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2597

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Suggested Suitable Titles for YouTube Explainer Video

“Delhi HC Remands Harvard’s SC-β Cell Patent – Why Controller’s Refusal Was Set Aside | Section 3(j) Explained”

“Harvard Stem Cell Patent Rejected? Delhi High Court Says Controller MUST Consider Amended Claims | Full Case Breakdown”

“SC-β Cells & Section 3(j) Patent Battle – Harvard College vs Indian Patent Office | Procedural Victory Explained”

“Landmark Patent Remand: When Post-Hearing Amendments Change Everything | Harvard SC-β Cell Case 2026”

“Why Ignoring Amended Claims = Fatal Error for Patent Controller | Delhi HC Judgment on Stem Cell Patent”

“Harvard’s Non-Native Beta Cells Patent: Delhi HC Orders Fresh Examination After Controller’s Mistake”

“Section 15 Patents Act Explained – Harvard College Appeal | Complete Analysis of SC-β Cell Patent Rejection”

Bombay Metals (P) Limited Vs. Tara Singh

Head Note of the Case

Delhi High Court, in a rectification petition under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, expunged two copyright registrations (A-85865/2009 and A-85866/2009) granted to the respondent for artistic works on packaging/labels of “Ball Head Racers” bicycle parts. The Court held that the impugned artistic works were not “original” within the meaning of Section 13(1)(a) read with Section 2(c) of the Act because they were colourable imitations and substantial reproductions of the petitioner’s earlier registered artistic works in packaging. The judgment reiterates that copyright protection for labels/packaging as artistic works requires originality; mere trade-dress elements or colour schemes cannot be monopolised if generic, but when the overall get-up, layout, colour scheme, placement of logo, typography and arrangement create a deceptive similarity, the later work lacks originality and infringes the prior copyright. The Court applied the “broad and essential features” test (not microscopic side-by-side comparison) and relied on prior permanent injunction granted in a civil suit between the same parties to hold the respondent’s adoption dishonest. The petitioner, being a registered copyright owner and a trade rival, was held to be a “person aggrieved” competent to maintain the rectification petition. The ruling underscores that copyright search certificates under Section 45 are not conclusive and that a registration obtained in violation of the Act or by suppressing pending litigation is liable to be expunged.

Introduction

This is a landmark rectification proceeding under the Copyright Act, 1957 concerning artistic copyright in commercial packaging/labels used for bicycle components (specifically “Ball Head Racer” parts). The petitioner, a long-standing manufacturer, sought removal of two copyright entries granted to a trade rival on the ground that the rival’s packaging was a slavish imitation of the petitioner’s earlier copyrighted designs. The judgment is significant because it clarifies the interplay between copyright originality, substantial similarity in labels, and the High Court’s rectification jurisdiction under Section 50. It also demonstrates how a prior civil suit decree of permanent injunction can influence copyright rectification.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Bombay Metals (P) Limited, manufactures and markets bicycle parts under distinctive trade dress/packaging featuring specific colour combinations, layout, arrangement of features and get-up. One of its products is “Ball Head Racer”. The petitioner is the registered owner of four copyrights in its packaging designs:

A-11138/74 – BM Screw Racer Packaging (red variant shown in judgment);

A-55236/98 – BM Ball Head Racer Packaging (red);

A-55238/98 – BM Ball Head Racer Packaging (black);

A-55214/98 – BM Screw Racer Packaging (green/teal).

The respondent No. 1 (Tara Singh, proprietor of R.S. Industries) was engaged in the same business. In January 2002 the petitioner discovered that the respondent was using packaging that was a colourable imitation of the petitioner’s designs. This led to Civil Suit No. 127/2002 filed before the Delhi High Court seeking injunction. An interim injunction was granted on 12.02.2002 restraining the respondent from using deceptively similar packaging. The respondent was found to have violated the injunction, leading to four contempt petitions (CCP 169/2002, CCP 13/2004, CCP 122/2005 and I.A. 12504/2006).

In 2002-03 the respondent obtained copyright search certificates (CC 2470/2002-03 etc.) under Section 45(1) of the Act claiming no similar artistic work existed. The petitioner challenged those certificates in WP(C) No. 1604/2004; the High Court quashed them on 02.12.2008 and directed the respondent to disclose the pendency of the civil suit while applying for any copyright registration. The respondent allegedly did not comply. Later, the respondent obtained the impugned registrations A-85865/2009 and A-85866/2009 for its orange/red and blue packaging variants of “Ball Head Racers”. These registrations are the subject matter of the present rectification petition.

Procedural Background

The rectification petition was originally filed before the Copyright Board, Delhi. Pursuant to legislative changes and jurisdictional shifts, it was transferred to the Calcutta High Court and finally to the Delhi High Court by an order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 465/2024. The matter was heard as C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 17/2024 in the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court.

Dispute in Question

Whether the two impugned copyright registrations (A-85865/2009 and A-85866/2009) were wrongly made and liable to be rectified/expunged from the Register of Copyright under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 on the grounds that (i) the artistic works lack originality, (ii) they are substantial reproductions of the petitioner’s earlier copyrighted packaging, and (iii) the registrations were obtained in violation of statutory provisions and court orders.

Arguments of Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The impugned registrations violate Section 45 because a proper search would have revealed the petitioner’s earlier copyrights.

Artistic works must be “original” under Section 13(1)(a); the respondent’s packaging is a colourable and slavish imitation and therefore not original.

The respondent’s adoption is dishonest and mala fide, intended to misappropriate the petitioner’s goodwill.

The prior civil suit and permanent injunction decree dated 27.09.2016 conclusively establish infringement.

The petitioner is a “person aggrieved” entitled to seek rectification.

Respondents’ Arguments (Nos. 1A & 1B):

The titles are completely different (“BM LIMITED” vs “RAJIS QUALITY AND QUANTITY”) and there is no visual, structural or phonetic similarity.

The get-up and trade dress are not slavish imitations; the petitioner is merely picking isolated generic features (colour).

Colours are common to the trade and cannot be monopolised.

The petitioner cannot dissect the label to create a claim of infringement.

The petition deserves to be dismissed.

Reasoning of the Judge (including different provisions of law and their context)

JSection 50 of the Copyright Act empowers the High Court to rectify the Register if an entry is made “wrongly” or “wrongly remains” on the Register. The provision is in the nature of a summary rectification power analogous to trade-mark rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. Any “person aggrieved” can invoke it. The Court held the petitioner is a person aggrieved because (i) it holds prior registered copyrights in identical subject-matter, and (ii) both parties are competitors in the bicycle-parts market; continued existence of the impugned registrations would dilute the petitioner’s statutory copyright and goodwill.

The core legal concept clarified is originality of artistic works. Under Section 13(1)(a), copyright subsists in “original artistic works”. Section 2(c) defines “artistic work” to include any “drawing, painting, … or any other work of artistic craftsmanship” and, importantly for commercial labels, the arrangement of letters, colours, layout and get-up can qualify if the overall expression is original. Originality in Indian copyright law does not require novelty or invention; it requires that the work should not be a mere copy and should involve the exercise of skill, labour and judgment (though the threshold is low). However, when a work is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of an earlier work, it fails the originality test and also infringes the prior copyright under Section 51.

The Judge applied the test of substantial similarity laid down by the Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. (1972) 1 SCC 618 (originally for passing-off but held equally applicable to copyright in labels). The test is: compare the broad and essential features of the two works, not by placing them side-by-side for microscopic differences, but from the viewpoint of an average purchaser with imperfect recollection. If the overall impression is such that one is likely to be mistaken for the other, there is substantial reproduction.

The Court then conducted a detailed visual comparison (paras 19-21 of the judgment) and found:

Identical colour schemes (red/blue variants);

Circular logo placed centrally in white-and-blue or white-and-red;

Trade name in white letters on coloured background;

Product name “BALL HEAD RACERS” in identical position and font style;

Side panels with identical wording and placement (“BALL HEAD RACER” and “10 SET OF THREE”).

These elements created an overall deceptive similarity. The respondent’s argument of “different titles” was rejected because title is only one element; the get-up as a whole was copied.

The Judge also noted the respondent’s past conduct (violation of injunction, suppression of litigation) rendered the adoption mala fide, reinforcing lack of originality.

Judgements relied upon by the Judge and their context

Marico Ltd. v. Jagit Kaur, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8488 (Delhi High Court) – Directly applied. The Court quoted para 6 of Marico at length. In Marico, two coconut-oil labels were compared; the Court held that colour scheme, arrangement of coconut tree and broken coconuts were substantially similar even though brand names differed. The judgment clarified that the Parle Products test applies equally to copyright infringement actions involving artistic works/labels.

Parle Products P. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC 618 (Supreme Court) – The foundational authority quoted verbatim in Marico and adopted in the present case. It laid down the “not side-by-side” rule and the “average purchaser with imperfect recollection” standard. Though originally a passing-off case, the Delhi High Court held the similarity test identical for copyright because both turn on deceptive similarity of artistic expression.

No other judgments were cited; the Court relied heavily on these two precedents to crystallise the legal position on label copyright.

Final Decision

The petition was allowed. Copyright Registrations Nos. A-85865/2009 and A-85866/2009 were cancelled and expunged from the Register of Copyright. The Registry was directed to communicate the order to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks within four weeks for necessary updation on the official website.

Concluding Note

The judgment is a textbook illustration of how Indian courts protect copyright in commercial packaging while preventing monopolisation of generic trade-dress elements. By emphasising the “broad features” test and linking copyright originality with the absence of copying, the Court has sent a strong message that dishonest copying of a competitor’s label design will not be rewarded with statutory copyright protection. The decision also reinforces the High Court’s supervisory role over the copyright register under Section 50, making it an effective remedy against wrongly granted registrations.

Legal Point Settled in this Case (with clear explanation of legal concepts)

The judgment settles the following propositions:

Originality in label/packaging copyright: A later artistic work (label) is not “original” under Section 13(1)(a) if it is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of an earlier copyrighted label, even if minor changes (different brand name) are made. The test is not identity but overall deceptive similarity judged by broad essential features.

Application of Parle Products test to copyright: The Supreme Court’s passing-off similarity test in Parle Products is equally applicable to determine substantial reproduction in copyright suits involving artistic works. Courts must adopt the viewpoint of the average consumer, not an expert comparing labels side-by-side.

Person aggrieved under Section 50: A prior copyright owner who is also a trade rival is a person aggrieved if the continued registration of an infringing work would dilute its statutory rights and goodwill.

Section 45 search certificates are not conclusive: Obtaining a “no similar work” certificate does not validate a subsequent registration if the work is in fact copied; the certificate can be challenged and the registration expunged.

Prior civil decree as evidence: A permanent injunction decree in a civil suit between the same parties conclusively establishes infringement and can be relied upon in the rectification proceeding to show lack of originality and mala fides.

These principles provide clear guidance to manufacturers, copyright registries and practitioners on the protectability of packaging designs and the scope of rectification proceedings.

Case Title: Bombay Metals (P) Limited Vs. Tara Singh Prop. R.S. Industries (Regd) and Anr

Date of Order: 28 March 2026

Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 17/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2596

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Suggested Suitable Titles for YouTube Explainer Video

“Delhi HC Cancels Copyright of Bicycle Parts Packaging – Bombay Metals vs Tara Singh | Full Case Explained”

“When Copying a Label = No Copyright Protection | Landmark Delhi High Court Judgment on Artistic Works”

“Section 50 Copyright Rectification Explained – How Delhi HC Expunged Two Registrations for Copying Packaging Design”

“Parle Products Test Applied to Copyright Labels | Detailed Analysis of Bombay Metals Case 2026”

“No Originality = No Copyright: Delhi HC Strikes Down Imitated Bicycle Part Packaging Registrations”

“Trade Dress vs Copyright – Why Your Competitor’s Label Can Be Cancelled | Latest Delhi HC Ruling”

“Full Breakdown: Bombay Metals (P) Ltd. v. Tara Singh – Copyright Battle Over Ball Head Racer Packaging”

Saga Lifesciences Limited Vs M/s Anaadi Global Co

Export constitutes use in India for infringement and passing-off

Head Note of the Case

In this trademark infringement and passing-off suit, the High Court of Delhi granted an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC restraining the defendants from using the mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” (or any deceptively similar mark) in relation to pharmaceutical, medicinal and nutraceutical preparations in Class 05. The Court held that the Impugned Mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s long-established and registered mark “SAGA”, with “SAGA” forming the dominant and essential feature. Triple identity (identical/similar marks, identical goods, identical trade channels via e-commerce) was established. Export sales were held to constitute “use” in India under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Defences of honest adoption, distinct consumer base, non-use in domestic market, estoppel from Reply to Examination Report, and lack of territorial jurisdiction were rejected. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were found in favour of the Plaintiff.

Introduction

This is a classic trademark infringement and passing-off dispute in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical sector. Saga Lifesciences Limited (Plaintiff), a company established in 1981, sought an interim injunction against M/s Anaadi Global Co. & Anr. (Defendants) for using the mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” (Impugned Mark) in respect of goods identical or similar to those sold under the Plaintiff’s well-known mark “SAGA”. The judgment, delivered on 28 March 2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia in CS(COMM) 574/2023 (along with I.A. 15667/2023 & I.A. 19731/2023), is a detailed 22-page reasoned order granting ad-interim injunction after hearing both sides. The case highlights principles of deceptive similarity, triple identity, territorial jurisdiction in e-commerce cases, and the effect of export sales under Section 56 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff is an Indian pharmaceutical company established in 1981. On 01.05.1981, through its predecessor, it adopted the mark “SAGA” (“Subject Mark”) as part of its trade name and has continuously used it for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations, nutraceutical products, dietetic substances adapted for medical use, and cosmetics. The Plaintiff owns multiple registrations/applications for “SAGA” and its formative marks (e.g., SAGAFIXIM, SAGACOXIB, SAGAPDIN, SAGAMOL, SAGAPANTO, SAGAFO SA, SAGAFORM, SAGASARTAN) primarily in Class 05. Key registration: Application No. 3482073 dated 14.02.2017 (user claimed since 01.05.1981) registered in Class 05 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations.

The Plaintiff’s products are exported to various countries (Vietnam, Togo, Kazakhstan, etc.), with substantial turnover (₹109,22,42,602 in FY 2021-2022 under the Subject Mark). The Plaintiff claims the mark has acquired immense reputation and goodwill.

The Defendants (Defendant No. 1 – M/s Anaadi Global Co.) adopted the Impugned Mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” (with a device/logo) and filed applications in Classes 03 & 05 (Application No. 5059298 dated 26.07.2021 – proposed to be used; later applications Nos. 5171554 & 5171547 dated 13.10.2021 claiming user since 01.08.2021). The Defendants claimed the mark was coined by combining “HALE” (meaning healthy/hearty) + “SAGA” (meaning a long story) to convey “maintaining good health is a long-term process”. The Defendants sell nutraceutical/health supplements (protein powder, pre-workout, etc.) through e-commerce platforms (Flipkart, Amazon) with claimed sales of ₹1.16 Cr+ and significant advertisement spend.

The Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ applications (oppositions filed, some pending/rectification filed). The Plaintiff alleged the Defendants were riding on its goodwill by prominently featuring “SAGA” in the Impugned Mark.

Procedural Background

The Plaintiff filed the suit CS(COMM) 574/2023 seeking permanent injunction for infringement, passing off, etc. Along with the suit, it moved I.A. 15667/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for ad-interim injunction. I.A. 19731/2023 is also mentioned (likely related to additional relief/documents). Both sides were represented (Mr. Vikas Khera for Plaintiff; Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay for Defendant No. 1). The matter was heard at length. The Court passed a detailed interim order on 28.03.2026 disposing of the injunction application.

Core Dispute

Whether the Defendants’ use of “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” for pharmaceutical/medicinal/nutraceutical preparations amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered “SAGA” mark and passing off, entitling the Plaintiff to an ad-interim injunction. Key issues included: deceptive similarity (dominant “SAGA”), triple identity, territorial jurisdiction (e-commerce sales in Delhi), effect of export sales under Section 56, honest adoption defence, estoppel from Reply to Examination Report, and balance of convenience.

Arguments Raised by Both Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

Long continuous use since 1981 + multiple registrations/applications; “SAGA” is arbitrary/distinctive for the goods.

Impugned Mark is deceptively similar – entire “SAGA” is subsumed; “HALE” is descriptive; apostrophe and colour give “SAGA” dominant position.

Goods identical/similar (Class 05 pharma/nutraceuticals); same trade channels (e-commerce); triple identity.

Export sales constitute “use” in India under Section 56 (application in India to goods exported).

Defendants’ adoption dishonest – attempt to ride on Plaintiff’s goodwill.

Confusion inevitable among trade/public.

Plaintiff not claiming relief in Class 03 cosmetics at interim stage.

No estoppel – Reply to Examination Report (where “SAGA” was distinguished from other marks) does not cover Impugned Mark; inadvertent error by erstwhile attorney.

Defendants’ Arguments :

Honest adoption – “HALE” (healthy) + “SAGA” (long story) coined as composite mark with device/apostrophe; unique combination.

“SAGA” is a common English word (long story), not coined; many third-party users; no acquired distinctiveness.

Plaintiff uses “SAGA” only as house mark/device, not standalone; products exported only, not sold in domestic Indian market → no goodwill/reputation in India.

Different goods (Defendants: nutraceuticals/health supplements; Plaintiff: pharma); different purchasing public and trade channels.

No likelihood of confusion – products not identical; no domestic overlap.

Plaintiff’s registration in Ahmedabad; business in Surat → no territorial jurisdiction in Delhi (mere e-commerce availability insufficient).

Estoppel – Plaintiff in Reply to Examination Report distinguished “SAGA” from similar marks, cannot now claim similarity.

Delay – Plaintiff knew since 2022 but filed suit in 2023.

Balance of convenience against injunction; irreparable harm to Defendants.

Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of Judge

The Court analysed jurisdiction first, then deceptive similarity, likelihood of confusion, passing off, and other defences.

Territorial Jurisdiction (paras 7–11):

Rejected Defendant’s plea. Products available in Delhi via e-commerce platforms (Flipkart, Amazon). “Principle of dynamic effect and mere looming presence on the internet” confers jurisdiction. Section 20 CPC satisfied as cause of action arises in part in Delhi. No need for specific targeting pleaded.

Deceptive Similarity (paras 12–20):

Restricted relief to Class 05 only (Class 03 registration irrelevant).

Impugned Mark subsumes entire “SAGA”; mere prefix “HALE” (descriptive) + apostrophe + colour does not distinguish. “SAGA” given dominant position.

Prima facie deceptively similar for pharmaceutical/medicinal/nutraceutical preparations.

“SAGA” arbitrary (not descriptive of goods) despite being dictionary word.

Likelihood of Confusion & Triple Identity (paras 21–24):

Goods identical/similar; trade channels identical (e-commerce).

Export use deemed “use” in India under Section 56(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 – “The application in India of trade mark to goods to be exported from India … shall be deemed to constitute use of the trade mark”. Cited and applied Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Sami Khatib of Mumbai, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 484 (export sales satisfy infringement/passing-off requirements).

Passing Off (paras 25–27):

Substantial goodwill proved by ₹109 Cr+ turnover (FY 2021-22) + continuous use since 1981 + invoices.

Dishonest adoption – implausible Defendants unaware of Plaintiff’s mark.

Likelihood of confusion → misrepresentation → damage to goodwill.

Reply to Examination Report Defence (paras 28–30):

Rejected. Principle of approbate-reprobate/estoppel applies only when cited mark in Examination Report is the same as later impugned mark. Here, Impugned Mark was never cited in Plaintiff’s 2017 Examination Report. No concession regarding HALESAGA.

Conclusion & Balance of Convenience (paras 31–34):

Prima facie case established.

“This is a case of triple identity” (deceptively similar marks + identical product category + identical trade channels/consumer base).

Balance of convenience and irreparable injury favour Plaintiff.

Injunction granted during pendency of suit.

The Final Decision of Court

I.A. 15667/2023 is allowed. During pendency of the suit, the Defendants, their proprietors, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors and all others acting for/on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly/indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations under Class 05 under the Impugned Mark “HALESAGA / HALE’SAGA” or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s “SAGA” mark, so as to cause infringement and/or passing off. The application stands disposed of. (No interim relief in Class 03 cosmetics pressed.)

Point of Law Settled in the Case

Export sales constitute “use” in India under Section 56(1) for infringement and passing-off actions (Cadila Pharmaceuticals v. Sami Khatib applied).

Triple identity (similar marks + identical/similar goods + same trade channels) strongly supports injunction in pharma/nutraceutical cases.

Mere addition of a descriptive prefix (“HALE”) + apostrophe/device does not avoid deceptive similarity when the plaintiff’s mark (“SAGA”) is the dominant/essential feature.

E-commerce availability in the Court’s territory confers territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 CPC (dynamic effect of internet sales).

Estoppel/approbate-reprobate from Reply to Examination Report applies only to the specific cited marks; not to a later-adopted unrelated Impugned Mark.

Dictionary/common words can still be arbitrary/distinctive when used for unrelated goods; no automatic descriptiveness defence.

Case Title: Saga Lifesciences Limited Vs M/s Anaadi Global Co. & Anr.

Date of Order: 28 March 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 574/2023

Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:2600

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Suggested Titles for YouTube Explainer Video

“SAGA vs HALESAGA: Delhi HC Grants Injunction in Pharma Trademark Copycat Case – Full Breakdown”

“Why ‘HALE’SAGA’ Got Restrained by Delhi High Court – SAGA Lifesciences Victory Explained”

“Triple Identity in Trademark Law: Saga Lifesciences v. Anaadi Global – Detailed Judgment Analysis”

“Export Sales = Use in India? Section 56 Explained in HALESAGA Injunction Case (2026)”

“Delhi HC Stops ‘HALE’SAGA’ – Deceptive Similarity & E-Commerce Jurisdiction Ruling”

“SAGA Trademark Protected: Honest Adoption Defence Rejected by Justice Tejas Karia”

“Pharma Trademark War: Why Adding ‘HALE’ Didn’t Save HALESAGA – Full Legal Explainer”

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited

Likelihood of confusion, even without actual confusion, is sufficient to grant injunction

**Head Note of the Case**  

In this pharmaceutical trademark infringement suit, the High Court of Delhi granted a **permanent injunction** restraining Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited from using the mark ‘BEVATAS’ (Bevacizumab biosimilar for colorectal, ovarian, cervical, lung cancer and glioblastoma) which was held deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s registered mark ‘BEVETEX’ (Paclitaxel for breast, non-small cell lung and pancreatic cancer). Despite different active ingredients, dosage forms, indications, prices and modes of administration, the Court applied the **strict Cadila test** for pharmaceutical marks, emphasising public health and the low threshold of confusion among doctors, pharmacists, nurses and patients. The Plaintiff’s registration since 1983 and use since 2015 established prior rights; the Defendant’s 2016 adoption (even if coined from the salt + house mark) was subsequent. Defences of non-use/hoarding, different molecules, Schedule-H nature, price differential, honest adoption and lack of actual confusion were rejected. The Court held that likelihood of confusion (not actual confusion) is sufficient, especially for life-saving cancer drugs.

**Introduction**  

The present case is a classic pharmaceutical trademark infringement battle between two leading Indian generic/biosimilar manufacturers. Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited (Plaintiff) sought a permanent injunction, damages and other reliefs against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (Defendant) for alleged infringement of its registered trademark ‘BEVETEX’, passing off, unfair competition and dilution. The suit concerns two anti-cancer injectable drugs used in oncology but containing entirely different active pharmaceutical ingredients. The judgment, delivered on **28 March 2026** by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia in CS(COMM) 39/2023, is a detailed 34-page reasoned decision after full trial, granting permanent injunction to the Plaintiff while deciding all key issues in its favour.

**Factual Background**  

The Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, one of India’s largest pharmaceutical companies with global operations in over 150 countries. The Plaintiff coined and registered the mark **BEVETEX** in 1983 (Trade Mark No. 410744 dated 16.09.1983, Class 5) for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The drug under BEVETEX is **Paclitaxel** (a synthetic chemical cytotoxic agent/microtubule inhibitor) used for treatment of metastatic breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer and pancreatic cancer. The Plaintiff launched the product in 2015, incurred substantial promotional expenses (₹53.79 Lac approx. in 2015-17) and achieved sales of ₹1076.06 Lac in the same period. The mark is an invented word and inherently distinctive.

The Defendant adopted the mark **BEVATAS** (applied for registration in 2016 on proposed-to-use basis, opposed by Plaintiff) for its biosimilar **Bevacizumab** (a monoclonal antibody/anti-angiogenic agent, rDNA product). The Defendant’s drug is used for colorectal cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer and recurrent glioblastoma. The Defendant launched the product in October 2016 (or 2017 as per Plaintiff’s knowledge) after obtaining DCGI approvals in June-July 2016. The Defendant claimed the mark was coined by combining “BEVA” (from Bevacizumab) + “TAS” (from its house mark INTAS).

Both products are Schedule-H (prescription-only) injectable vials administered by IV infusion in oncology settings under specialist supervision, but they belong to different pharmacological classes, have different dosages, reconstitution methods, infusion times, toxicity profiles and non-overlapping primary indications (with some overlap in lung/breast cancer contexts).

**Procedural Background**  

The suit was originally filed before the District Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi. On 02.01.2018 the Trial Court refused ex-parte ad-interim injunction citing public interest in cancer drugs. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court vide order dated 17.09.2018 dismissed the Order XXXIX application, finding no prima facie case. Issues were framed on 17.12.2018 (11 issues covering registration, prior use, infringement, confusion, hoarding, authorisation, delay/laches, cause of action, etc.).

The Plaintiff’s appeal (FAO 447/2018) was dismissed by the High Court on 09.01.2020. The SLP (No. 3385/2020) was also dismissed on 14.02.2020 with a direction that the Trial Court decide the suit uninfluenced by High Court observations. The Plaintiff thereafter revalued the suit and got it transferred to the High Court. Evidence was led, documents exhibited (including Power of Attorney as Ex. PW-1/1), and final arguments concluded. Judgment was reserved on 01.12.2025 and pronounced on 28.03.2026.

**Core Dispute**  

Whether the Defendant’s use of ‘BEVATAS’ for its Bevacizumab injection amounts to **infringement** of the Plaintiff’s registered mark ‘BEVETEX’ under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and passing off, given the structural, phonetic and visual similarity of the marks, even though the drugs contain different active ingredients and treat partially different cancers. Ancillary issues included alleged hoarding/non-use of the Plaintiff’s mark since 1983, honest adoption by Defendant, effect of Schedule-H status, price difference, and whether public health concerns justify injunction despite specialist administration.

**Arguments Raised by Both Parties**  

**Plaintiff’s Arguments**:  

- Statutory rights under registration since 1983 give exclusive use; Defendant’s mark is deceptively similar structurally, phonetically and visually (common “BEVE”/“BEVA” prefix + similar ending).  

- Likelihood of confusion is high in oncology setting; patients/attendants/chemists/nurses may confuse the drugs due to imperfect recollection, illegible prescriptions and inability to pronounce complex salts.  

- Both are cancer drugs administered by IV infusion in similar vials; wrong drug can be fatal (different toxicity profiles).  

- Public interest demands injunction to prevent disastrous consequences (reliance on *Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals*).  

- Section 29(3) presumption of confusion applies; strict test in pharma cases.  

- No hoarding – registration itself suffices; deemed use concept; no rectification application filed by Defendant.  

- Suit filed promptly upon knowledge in Dec 2017; no delay/laches.

**Defendant’s Arguments:  

- Marks must be compared as a whole – BEVETEX vs BEVATAS are visually, structurally and phonetically dissimilar (different prefix phonetics BEVE vs BEVA, endings TEX vs TAS; different labels).  

- Different molecules (Paclitaxel synthetic vs Bevacizumab biosimilar), different indications, reconstitution, infusion times, dosages, toxicity and prices (Defendant’s drug 3x costlier).  

- Both Schedule-H drugs administered only by super-specialist oncologists in hospitals – no scope for confusion.  

- Defendant coined mark honestly from salt + house mark INTAS; prior user since 2016 with regulatory approvals.  

- Plaintiff hoarded the mark (registered 1983, used only from 2015) – no goodwill; *Neon Laboratories* cited.  

- Plaintiff’s sales/turnover lower than Defendant’s; no evidence of actual confusion or goodwill.  

- No infringement/passing off; suit barred by delay, unclean hands and manufactured cause of action (Plaintiff knew of launch since 2016 via opposition).

**Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of Judge**  

The Court decided the suit issue-wise after detailed analysis of evidence and law.

**Issue Nos. 1 & 2 (Registration & Prior Use)**: Plaintiff proved registration in 1983 and use since 2015 with documentary/oral evidence. Mark is invented and inherently distinctive. Defendant’s use (2016) is subsequent. Issues decided in Plaintiff’s favour (paras 11-14).

**Issue Nos. 9 & 10 (Defendant’s Proprietorship/Honest Prior Use)**: Defendant’s adoption in 2016 is subsequent to Plaintiff’s registration (1983) and use (2015). Even if coined from salt + house mark, it is not prior use. Honest subsequent use is no defence to infringement. Issues decided in Plaintiff’s favour (paras 15-18).

**Issue Nos. 3 & 4 (Infringement & Likelihood of Confusion)**: The core reasoning.  

- Marks compared as a **whole** (anti-dissection rule) – structurally and phonetically similar; first and last syllables almost identical (*United Biotech v. Orchid Chemicals*, 2012 (50) PTC 433 (Del) (DB) – overall impression of ordinary shopper, not technical dissection).  

- Common prefix ‘BEV’/‘BEVA’ not exclusively claimed by Plaintiff, but overall mark is deceptively similar. “Common to register” does not prove “common to trade” (*Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar*, AIR 1978 Del 250; *Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd.*, 2008 (38) PTC 49 (Del)).  

- Pharma-specific strict test: *Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.*, AIR 2001 SC 1952 – stricter approach in pharmaceutical cases; courts must ensure no likelihood of confusion; public health paramount; even Schedule-H drugs sold without prescription in practice; doctors/pharmacists/patients may confuse.  

- Likelihood (not actual) confusion sufficient; Section 29(3) presumption. Confusion dangerous when marks used for different ailments (*Novartis v. Crest Pharma*, 2009 (41) PTC 57 (Del); *Charak Pharma v. Glenmark*, 2014 (57) PTC 538 (Bom); *Sun Pharma v. Glenmark*, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3786).  

- Consumer not expected to know salts/compounds; imperfect recollection test (*Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd.*, AIR 1960 SC 142).  

- Risk exists at prescribing, dispensing and purchase stages, not only specialist level. Price/molecule differences do not eliminate confusion in oncology setting.  

- Issues decided in Plaintiff’s favour; infringement established (paras 19-29).

**Issue No. 5 (Hoarding/Non-Use)**: Section 47 allows rectification for non-use but Defendant never applied. Registration subsists; rights under Section 28(1) protected. Actual use not required to be proved in infringement suit (*Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. v. Coca Cola Co.*, (1995) 5 SCC 545; *Wockhardt Ltd. v. Eden Healthcare*, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 163). *Neon Laboratories* misplaced. Issue decided in Plaintiff’s favour (paras 30-33).

Other issues (delay, authorisation, cause of action) also decided in Plaintiff’s favour on facts/evidence.

**The Final Decision of Court**  

The suit is **decreed**. A permanent injunction is granted restraining the Defendant, its directors, servants, agents, etc., from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in any pharmaceutical preparation under the mark ‘BEVATAS’ or any deceptively similar mark. The Defendant is directed to deliver up or destroy all infringing material. Costs and other reliefs (rendition of accounts/damages) were not pressed by Plaintiff in public interest; limited relief of injunction granted. All issues decided in favour of the Plaintiff.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

1. In pharmaceutical trademark cases, a **stricter approach** must be adopted; likelihood of confusion (even without actual confusion) is sufficient to grant injunction, especially for life-saving drugs (*Cadila Healthcare* principle reaffirmed and applied rigorously).  

2. Registration alone confers statutory rights under Section 28(1); non-use/hoarding is not a defence in infringement suit unless the mark is actually removed via rectification under Section 47.  

3. Marks must be compared as a **whole** (anti-dissection rule); minor differences or common prefixes derived from salts do not save a deceptively similar mark.  

4. Different active ingredients, indications, prices, Schedule-H status or specialist administration do **not** mitigate confusion risk in oncology drugs; public health overrides such factors.  

5. Honest/coined adoption or higher sales by defendant is irrelevant if the mark infringes a prior registered mark.  

6. Cause of action in infringement arises upon knowledge of infringing use; opposition to registration does not bar subsequent suit.

Case Detail: Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited  

Date of Order: 28 March 2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 39/2023  

Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:2601

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia  

**Suggested Titles for YouTube Explainer Video**  

1. “BEVETEX vs BEVATAS: Sun Pharma Wins Big! Delhi HC Grants Permanent Injunction in Pharma Trademark War”  

2. “Why Delhi High Court Stopped Intas from Using BEVATAS – Full BEVETEX Infringement Judgment Explained”  

3. “Cadila Rule Applied Strictly: Sun Pharma v Intas Cancer Drug Trademark Case Breakdown (2026)”  

4. “Different Molecules but Still Infringement? Delhi HC Pharma Trademark Ruling on BEVETEX vs BEVATAS”  

5. “Hoarding Defence Rejected: Sun Pharma Beats Intas in Landmark Cancer Drug Name Battle”  

6. “Public Health Wins: Delhi HC Permanent Injunction in BEVATAS Infringement Case – Full Analysis”  

7. “BEVETEX Protected! Why Different Cancer Drugs Can’t Have Similar Names – Justice Tejas Karia Judgment”  

These titles are SEO-optimised, highlight the drama, key legal principle (Cadila) and outcome while clearly indicating an explainer format.

Reckitt and Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Ors. Vs. Mr. Akash Arora trading as Grand Chemical Works

Protection of Bottle Shape as Trade Dress Post expiry of Design registration

Head Note of the Case  :

In this passing-off and trade-dress dispute, the High Court of Delhi granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or dealing in toilet cleaners, glass cleaners and disinfectants under trade dresses that are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ well-known HARPIC, COLIN and LIZOL packaging, bottle shapes, colour schemes and get-up. The Court held that the plaintiffs had established prima-facie goodwill, distinctiveness of their trade dress and likelihood of confusion on account of slavish imitation. The defendant’s pleas of expired design registrations, functionality of bottle shapes, generic colours, house-mark distinction and third-party use were rejected. Dual protection under Designs Act and Trade Marks Act/trade dress was affirmed following the Full Bench decision in *Mohan Lall*. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury also favoured the plaintiffs.

Introduction  

The present case arises out of a classic intellectual-property battle in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) hygiene and cleaning-products segment. Reckitt and Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited and its Indian affiliate (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Reckitt”) sought to restrain Mr. Akash Arora trading as M/s Grand Chemical Works (“Defendant”) from using packaging and bottle designs that the Plaintiffs alleged were virtually identical to their iconic HARPIC (toilet cleaner), COLIN (glass/house cleaner) and LIZOL (disinfectant) trade dresses. The dispute primarily centres on **passing off** and **infringement of unregistered trade dress**, with ancillary claims of design and copyright infringement. The judgment, delivered on 28 March 2026 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, is an interim order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC deciding the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction (I.A. 46336/2024).

**Factual Background**  

The Plaintiffs are part of the global Reckitt Benckiser group. They have been selling toilet cleaners under the mark **HARPIC** in India since 2001 (with the word mark used since 1984), glass and household cleaners under **COLIN** since 1998, and disinfectants under **LIZOL** since 1996. The Plaintiffs own numerous trade-mark registrations for the word marks, device marks, bottle shapes (including 3D/shape marks) and labels. They also held (now expired) design registrations for the HARPIC bottle (Nos. 184080 dated 29.11.2000 and 191291 dated 15.08.2002).

The Plaintiffs’ products are sold in distinctive **trade dresses** comprising:

- Specific bottle shapes with angled nozzles, indentations, curved patterns and grip features;

- Distinctive colour schemes (blue/red for HARPIC, blue/red/white for COLIN, blue/red/white/yellow for LIZOL);

- Unique label layouts, fonts, device elements and liquid colours.

The Plaintiffs have invested heavily in advertising and have generated massive annual revenues (e.g., HARPIC ≈ ₹1,279 Cr in 2023; COLIN ≈ ₹225 Cr; LIZOL ≈ ₹761 Cr). They claim the trade dresses have acquired **secondary meaning** and are source identifiers exclusively associated with Reckitt.

The Defendant, Mr. Akash Arora, trades as Grand Chemical Works and sells toilet cleaners, glass cleaners and disinfectants under the mark **GAINDA** (with a rhino logo). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant’s packaging, bottle shapes, colour combinations and overall get-up are **slavish imitations** of the Plaintiffs’ trade dresses, creating a high likelihood of confusion among consumers.

**Procedural Background**  

The Plaintiffs filed CS(COMM) 1052/2024 (and a connected suit CS(COMM) 5358/2025) before the High Court of Delhi seeking permanent injunction, damages, etc. Along with the suit, they moved I.A. 46336/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the impugned trade dresses. Both sides were represented by senior advocates (Mr. Chander M. Lall for Plaintiffs; Mr. Darpan Wadhwa for Defendant). The matter was heard at length and judgment was reserved. The Court delivered a detailed 36-page reasoned order on 28 March 2026.

**Core Dispute**  

Whether the Defendant’s packaging and bottle designs for its GAINDA products constitute **passing off** by imitating the Plaintiffs’ distinctive trade dresses, thereby causing likelihood of confusion and damage to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill. Ancillary issues included:

- Whether expired design registrations bar subsequent trade-mark/trade-dress protection;

- Whether bottle shapes are functional and therefore unprotectable;

- Whether colour combinations can be monopolised;

- Whether the Defendant’s house mark “GAINDA” and rhino logo are sufficient distinguishers.

**Arguments Raised by Both Parties**  

**Plaintiffs’ Arguments:  

- Long, continuous and extensive use + huge promotional expenditure have conferred enormous goodwill and secondary meaning on the trade dresses.  

- Side-by-side comparison shows **slavish imitation** of bottle shape, colour scheme, label layout and overall get-up.  

- Consumers purchase on the basis of **imperfect recollection**; trade channels are identical.  

- Dual protection (design + trade mark/trade dress) is legally permissible (Full Bench *Mohan Lall*).  

- No bona-fide explanation offered by Defendant for adopting nearly identical get-up → dishonest adoption (relying on *Midas Hygiene*).  

- Third-party use is irrelevant; Plaintiffs have been enforcing rights against infringers.  

- Prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury all favour injunction.

**Defendant’s Arguments**:  

- Plaintiffs’ design registrations for bottle shapes have expired; they cannot “evergreen” the monopoly by registering the same shapes as trade marks.  

- Bottle shapes are **functional** (angled nozzle, grip, ergonomics) and common to the trade → no exclusivity.  

- Colours (blue, red, white, yellow) are generic and not monopolisable.  

- Prominent house mark “GAINDA” + rhino logo + different brand name dispel any confusion.  

- Plaintiffs themselves use multiple colour variants and cannot claim exclusivity over any single scheme.  

- Defendant has been in the market since 2016/2020; injunction would cause huge hardship while Plaintiffs (78 % market share) suffer none → balance of convenience against injunction.  

- Interim orders in other cases have no precedential value.

**Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of Judge**  

The Court analysed the law of passing off in detail (paras 6–24) and reached the following conclusions:

1. **Elements of Passing Off** – The Court reiterated the classic trinity (goodwill, misrepresentation, damage). It emphasised that the plaintiff must show its get-up is distinctive and the defendant’s get-up is similar enough to deceive an average consumer of imperfect recollection. Comparison must be **holistic** – similarities, not dissimilarities, matter (para 19).

2. **Plaintiffs’ Goodwill & Distinctiveness** – The Court accepted the Plaintiffs’ evidence of 25+ years of uninterrupted use, massive sales turnover, advertising spend and 78 % market share. The trade dresses have acquired **secondary meaning** (para 20).

3. **Deceptive Similarity** – Side-by-side photographs and detailed comparison showed that the Defendant had copied essential features (bottle shape, colour scheme, cap colour, label layout, liquid colour). The overall impression at the point of sale is one of imitation (paras 10–11, 16–17). The Court held there was **no bona-fide explanation** for such close copying, invoking the *Midas Hygiene* principle that dishonest adoption raises a strong presumption of intent to pass off (para 12).

4. **Expired Designs & Dual Protection** – The Defendant’s strongest argument (evergreening via trade-mark registration after design expiry) was rejected. The Court relied on the **Full Bench decision in Mohan Lall, Proprietor of Mourya Industries v. Sona Paint & Hardware, AIR 2013 Delhi 143** (para 18), which held that shape of goods/packaging can simultaneously enjoy design and trade-mark/trade-dress protection. The Five-Judge Bench in *Carlsberg Breweries v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd., AIR 2019 Delhi 23* was held not to have overruled *Mohan Lall*. The Court clarified that as long as the design elements are used as part of a **larger trade dress**, they remain protectable (para 18).

5. **Functionality & Colour Arguments** – The Court held that while individual colours or functional elements may not be monopolised, the **overall combination, arrangement and presentation** (ensemble) had acquired distinctiveness. Therefore, the Defendant’s reliance on *Colgate Palmolive Co. Ltd. v. Patel* (2005) 31 PTC 583 (Del), *Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd.* (2017) 240 DLT 156 (DB), *ITC Ltd. v. Crescendo Tobacco Agency* 2011 (46) PTC 65 (Cal), *RB Health (US) LLC v. Dabur India Ltd.* 2020 (84) PTC 492 (Del) and *Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd.* 2007 SCC OnLine Del 736 was held inapplicable (para 22).

6. **House Mark & Third-Party Use** – The Court ruled that the prominent “GAINDA” mark and rhino logo do not dispel confusion when the overall get-up is deceptively similar (*Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories* (1965) 1 SCR 737 and *Intex Technologies* (2017) 239 DLT 99 (DB) distinguished – para 19). Third-party use by small infringers does not disentitle the Plaintiffs (*Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd.* 2008 (38) PTC 49, *Corn Products Refining v. Shangrila Foods* AIR 1960 SC 142, *National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co.* AIR 1971 SC 898 – para 23).

7. **Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience & Irreparable Injury** – All three ingredients were held satisfied. The Plaintiffs had made out a strong prima-facie case; delay/laches was rejected; balance of convenience favoured the Plaintiffs because the Defendant’s products were launched much later and the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable damage to brand equity (paras 5.9, 24–25).

**The Final Decision of Court**  

The Court **allowed** I.A. 46336/2024 and granted an **ad-interim injunction** in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Defendant, its directors, servants, agents, etc., were restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or dealing in:  

(i) Toilet cleaners in a trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ HARPIC trade dress;  

(ii) Glass cleaners in a trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ COLIN trade dress; and  

(iii) Disinfectants in a trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ LIZOL trade dress.  

The application was disposed of with the above directions (para 26).

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

1. **Dual protection** of product configuration/shape as both registered design and unregistered trade dress/trade mark is permissible under Indian law (*Mohan Lall* Full Bench reaffirmed).  

2. In passing-off actions, the **overall get-up** and **first-impression similarity** are decisive; meticulous side-by-side dissection is not the test.  

3. **Dishonest adoption** (no explanation for close copying) raises a strong presumption of intent to pass off (*Midas Hygiene* principle).  

4. Expired design rights do not automatically extinguish trade-dress rights in the packaging when the shape has acquired secondary meaning through long use.  

5. Individual colours or functional features may be common to the trade, but their **distinctive combination and arrangement** in the overall trade dress can still be protected.  

6. A prominent house mark or logo does not automatically negate confusion where the overall visual impression created by the packaging is deceptively similar.

Case Title: Reckitt and Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Ors. Vs. Mr. Akash Arora trading as Grand Chemical Works  

Date of Order: 28 March 2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 1052/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2599

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia  

**Suggested Titles for YouTube Explainer Video**  

1. “HARPIC vs GAINDA: Delhi HC Grants Injunction in Massive Trade Dress Copying Case – Full Breakdown”  

2. “Reckitt Wins Big! Why Delhi High Court Stopped ‘Gainda’ from Copying Harpic, Colin & Lizol Bottles”  

3. “Trade Dress War in Toilet Cleaner Market – Mohan Lall Principle Applied | Detailed Judgment Analysis”  

4. “Slavish Imitation of Packaging = Passing Off? Delhi HC Judgment Explained (Harpic Case 2026)”  

5. “Can You Copy Bottle Shape After Design Expires? Delhi HC Answers in Reckitt vs Akash Arora Case”  

6. “Harpic, Colin, Lizol Trade Dress Protected: Full Legal Analysis of 28 March 2026 Delhi HC Order”  

7. “Why ‘GAINDA’ Rhino Logo Wasn’t Enough to Save the Defendant – Trade Dress Injunction Explained”  

Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. v. Nilkamal Limited

Head Note of the Case

This Division Bench ruling on trademark infringement and passing off involving commercial induction cookers, the High Court of Delhi set aside a Single Judge’s order that had vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the use of the mark “STELLA”/“STELLADEXIN”. The Court held that Section 34 (prior continuous user defence) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was wrongly invoked because the foreign principal (SIC) failed to prove continuous prior use in India of the mark prior to the appellant’s registration and use. Mere sporadic invoices (some proforma and some not even mentioning the mark) were insufficient. The Court further ruled that Section 30(3) (international exhaustion) was inapplicable because the only registered proprietor in India is the appellant; the Chinese registration held by the foreign supplier does not qualify as a “registered trade mark” under the Act. The ex-parte injunction was revived and the interim applications were remanded for de-novo consideration by the Single Judge. The judgment clarifies the strict requirements of prior continuous user under Section 34 and the territorial nature of Indian trademark registration for exhaustion principles.

1. Introduction

This is an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC against the order dated 1 July 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning the mark STELLADEXIN / STELLA 德昕 used on commercial induction cookers (Class 11). The Division Bench (Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla) delivered a detailed judgment on 23 March 2026, allowing the appeal, setting aside the Single Judge’s order, reviving the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on 27 August 2024, and remanding the interim applications for fresh consideration. The ruling turns on the correct interpretation and application of Sections 34 and 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and underscores the territorial nature of Indian trademark rights.

2. Factual Background

Parties:

Appellant: M/s Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. (exclusive Indian agent).

Respondent 5 (SIC): Stella Industrial Co. Ltd. (Chinese manufacturer, owner of “STELLA 德昕” in China).

Respondent 2: Cambro-Nilkamal Pvt. Ltd. (joint venture with Nilkamal Ltd., importer/reseller of SIC products).

Exclusive Agency Agreement (EAA): Executed on 1 April 2017 between SIC and the appellant. The appellant was appointed exclusive agent for distribution, sale and promotion of STELLA-branded commercial induction cookers in India. The appellant was expressly authorised to decide designs and logos for the Indian market. The EAA was periodically renewed; the appellant claims it subsisted till 31 March 2027 (SIC claims termination on 13 November 2024).

Appellant’s Rights:

Using the composite mark STELLADEXIN (STELLA 德昕) since 2017.

Obtained Indian word-mark registration for STELLADEXIN effective 5 February 2022 in Classes 7, 9 and 11 (with alleged permission from SIC evidenced by a letter dated 21 June 2024).

Copyright registration dated 12 July 2024 for the “STELLA 德昕” logo.

Respondents’ Acts: In June 2024 the appellant discovered that Respondent 2 was selling identical induction cookers bearing the mark “STELLA” on its website. The appellant alleged infringement under Section 29(2)(b) and passing off.

Sales & Reputation: Appellant’s turnover reached ₹16.27 crores in FY 2022-23, evidencing substantial goodwill.

3. Procedural Background

Suit filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction, damages, etc.

27 August 2024: Learned Single Judge granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from using “STELLA” or any deceptively similar mark.

Respondents filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC; appellant filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

1 July 2025: Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s applications and allowed Respondent 2’s application, vacating the injunction solely on the basis of Sections 34 and 30(3) of the Trade Marks Act.

17 July 2025: Division Bench noted only three issues arise and heard the matter at length.

23 March 2026: Division Bench pronounced the judgment allowing the appeal.

4. Core Dispute

Whether the appellant (registered proprietor in India) was entitled to interim protection against the use of “STELLA”/“STELLADEXIN” by Respondent 2 (importer/reseller of goods manufactured by the foreign principal SIC), or whether Sections 34 (prior continuous user) and 30(3) (international exhaustion) completely barred any relief.

5. Arguments Raised by Both Parties

Appellant’s Arguments :

The EAA expressly authorised the appellant to decide designs/logos and to register marks in India.

Valid Indian registration of STELLADEXIN + copyright in the logo.

Respondents’ use of “STELLA” is identical/similar and covers identical goods → clear infringement under Section 29(2)(b).

No prior continuous user by SIC in India that satisfies Section 34.

Section 30(3) inapplicable because SIC has no Indian registration; only the appellant is the registered proprietor in India.

Respondent 2’s Arguments :

EAA only permitted use, not registration.

The permission letter dated 21 June 2024 is forged/misspelt (“STELLADIXEN”) and not properly signed.

SIC is the prior user in India since 2013 via Mittal International → Section 34 defence.

Respondent 2 is merely an authorised importer/reseller of genuine SIC goods → no infringement.

SIC (Respondent 5)’s Arguments :

STELLADEXIN is merely an English transliteration of its Chinese mark.

Prior user in India since 2013 through Mittal International (invoices produced).

EAA terminated on 13 November 2024; Respondent 2 is now the authorised importer.

International exhaustion under Section 30(3) applies.

6. Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of the Judges + Final Decision

Division Bench 

Issue 1 – Section 34

The Single Judge held SIC was prior continuous user since 2013 on the basis of four invoices. The Division Bench held this finding unsustainable even at the prima-facie stage.

Key Reasoning & Citations:

Section 34 requires prior continuous user in India antedating both the plaintiff’s registration and use (not mere prior adoption in China).

Only four invoices (2012–2016) were produced:

Two invoices (25 Dec 2012 & 23 Sep 2015) do not mention “STELLA” or “STELLADEXIN” at all.

Two are proforma invoices → not proof of concluded sales.

Karn Vir Mehta v. Collector of Customs (1997 SCC OnLine Ker 238) (para 35): Proforma invoices are merely tentative offers; they do not prove actual sale unless corroborated.

Even if accepted, the invoices do not establish continuous user before the appellant’s 2017 use and 2022 registration.

User in China (since 2002) is irrelevant for Section 34 in India (para 31).

Wander India Ltd v. Antox (India) P. Ltd (1990 Supp (1) SCC 727) and Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701) cited for the limited scope of appellate interference in interim injunction orders — yet the Single Judge’s finding was unsustainable even within that limited scope.

Issue 2 – No infringement against Respondent 2

The Single Judge held that if SIC is not an infringer, Respondent 2 (as re-seller) cannot be. The Division Bench rejected this as a non-sequitur. Import itself constitutes “use” under Section 29(6)(c).

Issue 3 – Section 30(3) & International Exhaustion

Single Judge relied on Kapil Wadhwa v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012 SCC OnLine Del 5172) and Seagate Technology LLC v. Daichi International (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3767) to hold any authorised importer can sell genuine goods.

Division Bench’s Ruling:

Section 30(3) applies only when goods bearing a registered trade mark (defined under Sections 2(w) & 2(t) as Indian registration) are lawfully acquired and put on the market by the proprietor or with his consent.

SIC has no Indian registration; the only registered proprietor in India is the appellant.

Respondent 2 did not import with the appellant’s consent.

Western Digital Technologies Inc. v. Geonix International (P) Ltd. (2026 SCC OnLine Del 901) (recent decision of the same Bench) was referred to explain the scope of Section 30(3), but held completely inapplicable on facts.

The Single Judge’s sweeping observation that “any person in India has the right to legally import goods… bearing the trademarks of any entity” was held incorrect in law (para 48).

Final Decision of the Court (paras 51–58):

Impugned order dated 1 July 2025 quashed and set aside.

Ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 27 August 2024 revived and continues till de-novo decision by the Single Judge.

IA 37339/2024, IA 49076/2024 & IA 41504/2024 remanded for fresh consideration, uninfluenced by the impugned order.

Parties directed to appear before the Single Judge on 2 April 2026.

Appeal allowed with no order as to costs.

7. Point of Law Settled in the Case

Section 34 defence requires strict proof of continuous prior use in India (not abroad) antedating the plaintiff’s registration and use. Sporadic or proforma invoices without clear mention of the mark are insufficient.

Section 30(3) international exhaustion applies only to goods bearing an Indian registered trade mark put on the market by the Indian registered proprietor or with his consent. A foreign registration does not qualify as a “registered trade mark” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Import of goods bearing an Indian-registered mark without the consent of the Indian registered proprietor constitutes “use” under Section 29(6)(c) and can amount to infringement, irrespective of the goods being “genuine” from the foreign manufacturer.

Case Title: Products and Ideas India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nilkamal Limited & Ors.

Date of Order: 23 March 2026 

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 111/2025, 

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2385-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Suggested YouTube Explainer Video Titles

Delhi HC Revives Injunction in STELLADEXIN Trademark Battle – Section 34 & 30(3) Explained

Why Foreign Trademark Registration canot Save Indian Importers – Landmark Delhi HC Ruling

STELLA vs STELLADEXIN: How Delhi HC Crushed the “Prior User” Defence in 2026

Section 34 Trade Marks Act Demystified – Proforma Invoices Rejected by High Court

International Exhaustion Myth Busted: Delhi HC Clarifies Section 30(3) Limits

Exclusive Agent Wins Round 1: Full Breakdown of Products & Ideas vs Nilkamal Judgment

Trademark Infringement 2026: What Every Importer Must Know After This Delhi HC Order

Britannia Industries Limited Vs Rajat Chawla

Head Note of the Case

In a detailed single-judge order dated 24 March 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed Britannia Industries Limited’s application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC in its trademark infringement suit against Rajat Chawla (proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises). The Court held that the plaint was deliberately vague for failing to identify the specific registered trademark (out of 19 cited) alleged to be infringed. On merits, the rival composite marks “BRITANNIA” (in its geometric pentagonal device) and “RENEWTRIA” (in a similar pentagonal device) were found not deceptively similar when compared as a whole, as the prominent wordmarks are starkly dissimilar and the geometric pentagonal structure alone is neither the dominant feature nor has acquired distinctiveness without the word “BRITANNIA”. The goods (bakery/dairy vs flavoured candies/confectionery) and trade channels (e-commerce only) were held distinct, with no likelihood of confusion. The judgments in Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar and Nilkamal Crates v. Reena Rajpal were distinguished on facts. The application was dismissed with a direction to the defendant to maintain and file audited sales accounts every six months. The order clarifies the law on pleading infringement, comparison of composite marks as a whole, and the evidentiary burden to prove distinctiveness of a device element in isolation.

1. Introduction

This is a commercial trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by Britannia Industries Limited (a leading Indian food major) against Rajat Chawla, sole proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises. The dispute concerns the alleged copying of Britannia’s geometric pentagonal device mark (a five-sided stylised/curvaceous structure with arches) used with the word “BRITANNIA” since 2018, by the defendant’s mark “RENEWTRIA” used on flavoured candies and confectionery since October 2022. The plaintiff sought an ex-parte/interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the “RENEWTRIA” device mark.

Court, after hearing detailed arguments and perusing pleadings, dismissed the interim injunction application (I.A. 31014/2024) on 24 March 2026 (reserved on 17 November 2025). The judgment is notable for its strong emphasis on precise pleading under Order VI Rule 2 CPC, the necessity of comparing composite marks as a whole, and the evidentiary requirement to prove that a device element (here, the pentagonal structure) has acquired distinctiveness in isolation from the wordmark.

2. Factual Background

Plaintiff (Britannia): A century-old company (mark adopted since 1918) engaged in bakery (biscuits, bread, cakes) and dairy products. Revenue FY 2022-23 ≈ ₹16,000 crores; advertising spend 2012-2023 > ₹12,000 crores. “BRITANNIA” declared well-known on 08.01.2024. 

Key device marks:

TM Nos. 3827311 (Class 29) & 3827312 (Class 30) dated 08.05.2018 – composite mark with geometric pentagonal structure + “BRITANNIA”.

Blank device TM No. 6056657 (Class 30) filed 08.08.2023, registered during pendency (21.09.2024) in red-green-yellow.

Multiple other registrations (19 in total cited) and copyright registrations.

Defendant: Small-scale manufacturer of flavoured candies, confectionery, cake decorations, preserved fruits, condiments. Adopted “RENEWTRIA” device mark (similar pentagonal structure + word “RENEWTRIA”) claiming use since 10.10.2022. Sells only on e-commerce platforms (Amazon, Flipkart, Jiomart, Meesho). Applied for registration of wordmark “RENEWTRIA” (TM Nos. 6503619 & 6503623).

Discovery: Plaintiff came to know of the defendant’s mark in March 2024 via Trademark Registry search. Issued cease-and-desist notice dated 13.03.2024; defendant replied on 15.04.2024 denying similarity.

3. Procedural Background

Suit: CS(COMM) 480/2024 filed on 29.05.2024 seeking permanent injunction, damages, etc.

Interim Application: I.A. 31014/2024 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (read with Section 94 & 151 CPC) for temporary injunction.

Written Statement filed by defendant; replication filed by plaintiff.

Arguments heard on multiple dates; reserved on 17 November 2025.

Judgment pronounced on 24 March 2026.

4. Core Dispute

Whether the defendant’s “RENEWTRIA” composite device mark (pentagonal structure + word) infringes the plaintiff’s registered “BRITANNIA” composite device mark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim injunction. Key sub-issues:

Vagueness in identifying the exact infringed registration.

Deceptive similarity (especially the geometric pentagonal device element).

Similarity of goods, trade channels, and likelihood of confusion.

5. Arguments Raised by Both Parties

Plaintiff’s Arguments :

The geometric pentagonal structure is the essential/distinctive feature slavishly copied.

Black-and-white registration gives right to use in any colour; defendant’s black-orange/gold use is infringing.

Near-identity of device structure + same Class 30 goods → high likelihood of confusion/association.

Reliance on Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar (three stripes case) and Nilkamal Crates v. Reena Rajpal for slavish copying of essential features.

Defendant’s Arguments :

Goods are completely different (candies/confectionery vs bakery/dairy); different trade channels (e-commerce only) and consumers.

Marks must be compared as a whole; wordmarks “BRITANNIA” vs “RENEWTRIA” are phonetically, visually and structurally dissimilar.

Mere geometric pentagonal shape (without wordmark or colour) is not distinctive and lacks acquired distinctiveness; used by others (e.g., Levi’s).

No evidence that plaintiff uses the pentagon standalone; no consumer association with the shape alone.

6. Judgement with Complete Citations and Their Context Referred in Reasoning of the Judge + Final Decision

Hon’ble Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered a 24-page reasoned order dismissing the injunction.

I. Vagueness in Plaint (paras 8–14)

The plaintiff listed 19 registrations but compared the impugned mark only with one black-and-white device in para 31 of the plaint without specifying which registered mark (out of 19) was infringed. This violates Order VI Rule 2 CPC (precise pleading) and prejudices the defendant (Order VIII Rule 5). The Court called the plaint “deliberately vague” and held the application liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. (Even in written submissions, plaintiff referred to five devices including an irrelevant “B” logo.)

II. Deceptive Similarity (paras 16–39)

The Court presumed the relied-upon marks were TM 3827311 & 3827312 (closest to the comparison table) and compared composite marks as a whole.

Key Legal Principle: Rival marks must be compared as a whole; overall impression on average consumer with imperfect recollection matters — not dissection. (Relied on Britannia Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1489, paras 15–17 — extensively quoted for the test that “points of dissimilarity, if sufficient, can also obviate any possibility of confusion” and that prominent features (here the wordmarks) outweigh device similarity.)

Wordmarks “BRITANNIA” and “RENEWTRIA” are prominent and starkly dissimilar in font, style, and impression.

Geometric pentagonal structure is not the dominant/distinctive feature; plaintiff never uses it standalone; no evidence of acquired distinctiveness or goodwill in the shape alone.

Actual use: Plaintiff uses red-yellow-green or purple-gold; defendant uses black-orange. No deceptive similarity from consumer perspective.

III. Goods, Trade Channels & Absence of Confusion (paras 40–42)

Goods are distinct (bakery/dairy vs candies). Defendant sells only online (mindful purchase). No evidence of actual confusion.

IV. Infringement under Section 29 (paras 43–49)

Plaintiff failed to prove:

Similarity of marks (as whole).

Similarity of goods (distinct despite same class).

Likelihood of confusion/association.

Citations distinguished:

Adidas AG v. Praveen Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8693 (para 45): Goods identical + sole essential feature (three stripes) copied + proven distinctiveness + promotional evidence. Not applicable here.

Nilkamal Crates and Containers v. Reena Rajpal, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7129 (para 45): Identical goods + multiple similarities + defendant’s undertaking to change mark. Not applicable.

Final Decision of the Court (paras 50–54):

Interim injunction application dismissed.

Balance of convenience in favour of defendant; no irreparable injury to plaintiff.

Defendant directed to maintain books of accounts and file audited gross sales statements every six months (March & September) with Registry + copy to plaintiff until final disposal.

Nothing in the order prejudices trial rights.

Suit listed before Roster Bench for directions on 10.04.2026.

7. Point of Law Settled in the Case

Pleading Requirement: In infringement suits, the plaintiff must specifically identify the exact registered trademark alleged to be infringed (Order VI Rule 2 CPC). Blanket reference to multiple registrations renders the plaint vague and liable to dismissal at interim stage.

Comparison of Composite Marks: Courts must compare marks as a whole (word + device + colour + get-up). Prominent wordmarks can outweigh device similarity if dissimilarities are “stark” (Britannia v. ITC, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1489 followed).

Distinctiveness of Device Element: A geometric/device element (e.g., pentagonal structure) used only with a wordmark does not automatically acquire standalone distinctiveness. Plaintiff must prove acquired distinctiveness/goodwill in the device in isolation at interim stage.

Goods & Channels: Even in same class, if actual goods, packaging, and trade channels differ materially (especially e-commerce vs physical), likelihood of confusion is low.

Burden in Interim Stage: Plaintiff must make out a prima facie case of deceptive similarity and irreparable injury; mere registration + device similarity is insufficient without evidence of dominance/distinctiveness of the copied element.

Title: Britannia Industries Limited Vs. Rajat Chawla Sole Proprietor of Madhve Global Enterprises

Date of Order: 24 March 2026 

Case Number: CS(COMM) 480/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2442

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Suggested YouTube Explainer Video Titles

Britannia Loses Interim Injunction Against “RENEWTRIA” Candies – Delhi HC Explains Why Geometric Shape Alone Isn’t Enough

Why Vague Plaint Killed Britannia’s Trademark Case – Landmark Delhi HC Ruling on Pleading Infringement

BRITANNIA vs RENEWTRIA: No Deceptive Similarity When Wordmarks Differ – Full Breakdown

Delhi HC Dismisses Britannia Injunction: Device Marks Must Prove Standalone Distinctiveness

Trademark Lesson 2026: Composite Marks Compared “As a Whole” – Britannia Case Explained

Why Britannia’s Pentagonal Device Didn’t Get Protection Against Candies – Justice Arora’s Key Ruling

E-Commerce Trademark Battle: Britannia Injunction Refused – What Importers & Small Brands Must Know