Modern Pipe Industries Vs Raj Kumar Maurya

Brief Legal News Write-Up

M/s Modern Pipe Industries v. Raj Kumar Maurya, Proprietor of M/s Konaflex Industries
Date of Judgment: 29.05.2026 : Case No.: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 & CS(COMM) 1402/2025 : Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4508 : Court: High Court of Delhi : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

The Court considered a dispute concerning copyright infringement, passing off, and deceptive similarity of trademarks used in relation to water storage tanks. The case arose from allegations that the defendant adopted and used the mark and logo “KONAFLEX”, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark and artistic work “KOANAFLEX”.

The principal question before the Court was whether the defendant’s use of “KONAFLEX” infringed the plaintiff’s copyright and amounted to passing off by creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the rival marks were visually, structurally, and phonetically almost identical, differing only by the inclusion of the letter “A” in the plaintiff’s mark. The Court found that the plaintiff was the prior user of the mark and had established substantial goodwill and reputation through long-standing use and promotion.

The Court held that the defendant’s mark “KONAFLEX” was deceptively similar to “KOANAFLEX” and was likely to confuse consumers with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The Court emphasized that prior user rights, goodwill, and the overall similarity of the competing marks justified protection in favour of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim injunction application and restrained the defendant from using the mark “KONAFLEX” or any deceptively similar mark and from reproducing or adapting the plaintiff’s artistic work during the pendency of the suit.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in KOANAFLEX–KONAFLEX Trademark and Copyright Dispute

Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s decision in M/s Modern Pipe Industries v. Raj Kumar Maurya, Proprietor of M/s Konaflex Industries is an important ruling on trademark protection, copyright in artistic labels, and the doctrine of passing off. The judgment highlights the protection available to businesses that have built goodwill in a mark over years of commercial use and reinforces the principle that deceptively similar marks cannot be adopted merely by making minor alterations.

The case is significant for manufacturers, brand owners, intellectual property practitioners, and businesses operating in competitive markets. It demonstrates how courts assess visual, phonetic, and structural similarity between rival marks and how prior use can outweigh subsequent claims based on registration.

The ruling also clarifies the approach to be adopted while considering interim injunction applications in intellectual property disputes and emphasizes the importance of protecting established goodwill from misappropriation.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, M/s Modern Pipe Industries, instituted a commercial intellectual property suit alleging infringement of copyright in its artistic logo and passing off arising from the defendant’s use of the mark “KONAFLEX”. The plaintiff claimed rights in the mark and artistic work “KOANAFLEX”, which had allegedly been created in 2018 and used extensively in relation to water storage tanks and related products. The plaintiff asserted that it had promoted the mark through social media, advertisements, and commercial sales and had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.

The plaintiff placed on record invoices, promotional material, and evidence of commercial use to establish its reputation and market presence. It also asserted that the mark “KOANAFLEX” had been used in relation to its products for many years and had become associated with the plaintiff in the minds of consumers.

The defendant adopted the mark “KONAFLEX” and applied for registration in November 2024 on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s mark and logo were almost identical to its own artistic work and were likely to mislead consumers. The plaintiff therefore sought interim relief restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark and logo.

The defendant opposed the application and raised objections relating to territorial jurisdiction, originality of the plaintiff’s artistic work, and the plaintiff’s entitlement to claim exclusive rights. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff’s own mark was under challenge in another proceeding and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief.

Dispute Before the Court

The primary issue before the Court was whether the defendant’s mark “KONAFLEX” and corresponding logo were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark and artistic work “KOANAFLEX”.

The Court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off, whether the plaintiff was the prior user of the mark, and whether the balance of convenience justified grant of an interim injunction.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s mark itself was under challenge, that territorial jurisdiction was lacking, and that the plaintiff had failed to establish originality in the artistic work. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that it was the prior adopter and user and that the defendant had copied not only the word mark but also the overall visual presentation and stylization of the logo.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court reiterated that at the stage of considering an ad interim injunction application, the enquiry is limited to determining whether the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience lies in its favour, and whether irreparable injury would result in the absence of protection.

Upon comparing the competing marks, the Court found that the defendant’s mark “KONAFLEX” was almost identical to “KOANAFLEX”. The Court observed that the visual presentation, lettering style, font, colour scheme, and placement of the marks on the products were substantially similar. Apart from the absence of the letter “A” in the defendant’s mark, there was virtually no distinguishing feature. The Court further held that the phonetic similarity between the marks was striking and likely to create confusion among consumers.

The Court noted that both parties dealt in identical products, namely water storage tanks, and therefore the trade channels, retailers, and consumer base were also common. An ordinary purchaser exercising average caution was likely to assume an association between the two products. Applying the settled test of an unwary consumer with imperfect recollection, the Court concluded that deception and confusion were highly probable.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 672, which recognizes the significance of prior user rights in trademark disputes. The Court found that the plaintiff had established earlier adoption and use, whereas the defendant’s application was filed only in 2024 and commercial use commenced thereafter.

The Court also referred to the Division Bench judgment in Kohinoor Seeds Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seeds Science Pvt. Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025, decided on 03.12.2025, while rejecting the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the issue required detailed examination at trial and that the existence of an interactive website accessible in Delhi was sufficient at the interim stage to sustain jurisdiction.

While dealing with the defendant’s argument that another party had challenged the plaintiff’s mark “KOANAFLEX”, the Court held that mere pendency of such proceedings could not deprive the plaintiff of interim protection. The effect of those proceedings would be assessed at the appropriate stage and did not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking relief in the present case.

The Court was also not persuaded by the defendant’s explanation regarding adoption of the mark “KONAFLEX”. It found that the explanation closely mirrored the plaintiff’s own explanation for adoption and failed to account for the striking similarity in stylization, font, colour scheme, and presentation. This weakened the credibility of the defendant’s defence.

After considering the evidence relating to goodwill, sales, promotional expenditure, prior adoption, and market presence, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case warranting immediate protection.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant, its agents, representatives, affiliates, and persons acting on its behalf from using the mark “KONAFLEX” or any other identical or deceptively similar mark during the pendency of the suit.

The Court further restrained the defendant from reproducing, communicating, adapting, or otherwise using any artistic work identical or substantially similar to the plaintiff’s copyrighted artistic work. The interim applications were disposed of in terms of the directions issued, while clarifying that the observations were confined to the adjudication of the interim relief applications and would not affect the final merits of the suit.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reinforces that prior user rights remain a powerful basis for obtaining protection in passing off and copyright infringement actions, even where the defendant possesses a trademark registration application.

The decision further establishes that courts will examine overall visual impression, phonetic similarity, stylization, colour scheme, and market circumstances while assessing deceptive similarity. Minor spelling variations cannot shield a party from liability when the overall commercial impression of the competing marks remains substantially the same.

The ruling also reiterates that pending challenges against a plaintiff’s mark do not automatically deprive the plaintiff of interim protection where a strong prima facie case and substantial goodwill have been established.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Modern Pipe Industries Vs Raj Kumar Maurya, Proprietor of M/s Konaflex Industries

Date of Judgment/Order: 29.05.2026

Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 & CS(COMM) 1402/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4508

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Delhi High Court Restrains Use of KONAFLEX Mark in Trademark Dispute

2. KOANAFLEX vs KONAFLEX: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction

3. Prior User Rights Prevail in Delhi High Court Trademark Case

4. Delhi HC Protects KOANAFLEX Brand Against Deceptively Similar Mark

5. Copyright and Passing Off Relief Granted in KOANAFLEX Case

6. Delhi High Court on Deceptive Similarity in Water Tank Branding

7. KONAFLEX Mark Restrained by Delhi HC in IP Dispute

8. Trademark and Copyright Protection for KOANAFLEX Explained

9. Delhi HC Reaffirms Importance of Prior Use in Passing Off Cases

10. KOANAFLEX Judgment: Key Lessons on Trademark Enforcement

11. Intellectual Property Victory for Modern Pipe Industries

12. Delhi High Court Clarifies Interim Injunction Standards in Trademark Cases

Suggested SEO Tags:

Delhi High Court, KOANAFLEX, KONAFLEX, Modern Pipe Industries, Raj Kumar Maurya, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property Rights, Prior User Rights, Trademark Law India, Copyright Law India, Deceptive Similarity, Commercial IP Suit, Water Storage Tanks, Brand Protection, Trademark Litigation, Interim Injunction, Delhi HC Judgment, Neon Laboratories Case, Kohinoor Seeds Case, Artistic Work Copyright, Business Goodwill, Consumer Confusion, Trade Dress Protection, Intellectual Property Litigation, Passing Off Action, Copyright Protection, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

M/s Modern Pipe Industries v. Raj Kumar Maurya, Proprietor of M/s Konaflex Industries, Delhi High Court, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2025 & CS(COMM) 1402/2025, decided on 29.05.2026. The plaintiff sought interim protection against the defendant’s use of the mark “KONAFLEX” and a similar logo in relation to water storage tanks, alleging copyright infringement and passing off of its mark “KOANAFLEX”. The Court found that the competing marks were visually, structurally, and phonetically similar and that the plaintiff had established prior adoption, prior use, and substantial goodwill. Holding that confusion among consumers was likely, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining use of “KONAFLEX” and any substantially similar artistic work during the pendency of the suit.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Delhi High Court building, large water storage tanks, trademark certificates, intellectual property law symbols, courtroom visuals, legal documents, and scales of justice. Prominently display the words “KOANAFLEX” and “KONAFLEX” side by side with a bold “VS” symbol and highlight their visual and phonetic similarity. Include headlines reading “DELHI HC GRANTS INJUNCTION”, “KONAFLEX RESTRICTED”, and “TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT DISPUTE”. Use a modern red, blue, black, and gold legal-news theme. Show confusion arrows between competing brands, copyright symbols, trademark icons, and an injunction stamp. Emphasize prior user rights, passing off, goodwill, and deceptive similarity. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Zenlabs India

Brief Legal News Write-Up

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Zenlabs India & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2026 : Case No.: Commercial IP Suit No. 535 of 2016 : Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13163 : Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arif S. Doctor

The Court considered a dispute concerning trademark infringement and passing off in relation to medicinal products marketed under the marks “ZINOX” and “ZENOX”. The case arose from allegations that the defendants were manufacturing and selling pharmaceutical products under the mark “ZENOX”, which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark “ZINOX”.

The principal question before the Court was whether the defendants’ use of the mark “ZENOX” amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, particularly in the context of medicinal products where a higher standard of scrutiny is required.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that the plaintiff had established valid and subsisting trademark rights in “ZINOX” and had demonstrated extensive commercial use of the mark. The Court found that “ZENOX” and “ZINOX” were visually and phonetically similar, differing only by the substitution of one letter, and that such similarity was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

The Court held that the defendants had infringed the plaintiff’s trademark and were guilty of passing off, emphasizing that even a slight possibility of confusion in medicinal products must be avoided because it may pose risks to public health.

Accordingly, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granted a permanent injunction restraining use of the impugned mark “ZENOX”, and awarded costs of ₹5,00,000 against each defendant.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Bombay High Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Use of “ZENOX” Mark in Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute

Introduction

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Zenlabs India & Anr. reinforces the stringent standards applicable to trademark disputes involving medicinal and pharmaceutical products. The decision highlights the importance of protecting consumers from confusion in the healthcare sector and reiterates the principle that even minor similarities between competing pharmaceutical trademarks may justify judicial intervention.

The ruling is significant for pharmaceutical companies, trademark owners, healthcare professionals, and intellectual property practitioners. It demonstrates the judiciary’s continuing commitment to safeguarding public health while protecting valuable trademark rights acquired through registration and long-standing commercial use.

The judgment also provides important guidance on the assessment of deceptive similarity, phonetic resemblance, and the consequences of adopting a mark that closely resembles an established pharmaceutical trademark.

Factual and Procedural Background

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the plaintiff, instituted a commercial intellectual property suit alleging infringement of its registered trademark “ZINOX” and passing off by the defendants. The plaintiff asserted that it was the registered proprietor of the trademark “ZINOX” in Class 5 and had been using the mark extensively in connection with medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The trademark registration was originally obtained in 2007 and remained valid and subsisting through subsequent renewal.

The plaintiff produced evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark, including sales records, invoices, promotional expenditure records, and certifications supporting the reputation and goodwill associated with “ZINOX”. The plaintiff contended that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and was exclusively associated with its products in the pharmaceutical market.

The dispute arose when the defendants began manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products under the mark “ZENOX”. According to the plaintiff, the impugned mark was deceptively similar to “ZINOX” and was likely to mislead consumers and members of the trade. Despite entering appearance, the defendants failed to file a written statement, did not contest the plaintiff’s evidence, and did not cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness. Consequently, the plaintiff’s evidence remained unchallenged.

The matter ultimately proceeded for adjudication before the Bombay High Court.

Dispute Before the Court

The principal issue before the Court was whether the defendants’ use of the mark “ZENOX” in relation to pharmaceutical products infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademark “ZINOX” and constituted passing off.

The plaintiff argued that the two marks were nearly identical in appearance and pronunciation and that the defendants had deliberately adopted the impugned mark to exploit the goodwill and reputation attached to the plaintiff’s trademark. It was further contended that the products involved were medicinal preparations and, therefore, any possibility of confusion could have serious consequences for public health.

The Court was also required to determine whether the plaintiff had established entitlement to injunctive relief, damages, and costs.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court first examined the plaintiff’s trademark rights and found that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark “ZINOX”, with valid and subsisting registration. The evidence on record established continuous use of the mark and demonstrated that it had acquired substantial goodwill and distinctiveness in the pharmaceutical market.

While assessing deceptive similarity, the Court relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in K. R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co., Madras & Anr., (1969) 2 SCC 131. In that decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that trademark comparison must consider not only visual resemblance but also phonetic similarity and the overall likelihood of confusion. The Court noted that similarity in sound may be sufficient to create deception even where visual differences exist.

The Court also referred to Hiralal Prabhudas v. Ganesh Trading Company & Ors., 1983 SCC OnLine Bom 284, where the Bombay High Court recognized that substantial phonetic similarity between marks could mislead ordinary purchasers and cause confusion.

Particular reliance was placed on the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73. In that case, the Supreme Court laid down various factors for determining deceptive similarity and stressed that a stricter standard applies where medicinal products are involved because mistakes may have life-threatening consequences. The Court reproduced and applied the principles concerning the nature of marks, similarity of goods, class of purchasers, mode of purchase, and surrounding circumstances.

Applying these principles, the Court observed that the rival marks differed only by replacement of the letter “I” with “E”. The marks were visually similar and effectively homophonous. The Court concluded that consumers, pharmacists, and persons involved in the pharmaceutical trade could easily be misled into believing that the products originated from the same source.

The Court further found that the defendants had failed to provide any explanation for adopting the impugned mark. Their conduct in not contesting the proceedings and not producing any defence strengthened the inference that adoption of the mark was dishonest and intended to capitalize upon the goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s trademark.

The Court emphasized that where medicinal products are involved, courts must adopt an especially cautious approach because confusion between competing pharmaceutical products can affect public health and safety. Consequently, the slightest possibility of deception must be avoided.

Although the plaintiff sought damages of ₹5,00,000, the Court declined to grant damages due to absence of specific evidence establishing the extent of loss suffered. However, considering the defendants’ conduct and the nature of the infringement, the Court found it appropriate to award substantial costs.

Final Decision of the Court

The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favour of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and granted permanent injunctive relief restraining the defendants from using the trademark “ZENOX” or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to pharmaceutical and medicinal products.

The Court held that the defendants had committed trademark infringement and passing off. While the claim for damages was rejected for lack of evidence, the Court awarded costs of ₹5,00,000 against each defendant, payable within eight weeks, with interest at 8% per annum in the event of default. The suit was accordingly disposed of.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reaffirms that in cases involving medicinal and pharmaceutical products, courts must apply a stricter standard while assessing deceptive similarity between competing trademarks.

The decision reiterates that phonetic similarity can be as important as visual similarity and that even minor differences between pharmaceutical trademarks may not be sufficient to avoid confusion. The Court also reaffirmed the principle laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. that public health considerations demand heightened protection against deceptive pharmaceutical branding.

The ruling further demonstrates that failure to contest infringement proceedings may strengthen the inference of dishonest adoption and justify award of substantial costs against the infringing party.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Zenlabs India & Anr.

Date of Judgment/Order: 15.06.2026

Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 535 of 2016

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13163

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arif S. Doctor

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Bombay High Court Grants Injunction Against ZENOX Trademark

2. Glenmark Wins Trademark Infringement Case Over ZINOX Mark

3. Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute: Bombay HC Protects ZINOX Brand

4. ZINOX vs ZENOX: Bombay High Court Applies Cadila Principles

5. Bombay HC Reiterates Strict Standard for Medicinal Trademark Similarity

6. Trademark Infringement and Passing Off in Pharmaceutical Products Explained

7. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Secures Permanent Injunction Against Zenlabs

8. Bombay High Court on Phonetic Similarity in Pharmaceutical Trademarks

9. ZENOX Held Deceptively Similar to ZINOX by Bombay High Court

10. Landmark Pharmaceutical Trademark Judgment of 2026

11. Cadila Health Care Principles Applied in Bombay HC Trademark Case

12. Public Health Concerns Drive Strict Trademark Protection in Pharma Sector

Suggested SEO Tags:

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Zenlabs India, ZINOX Trademark, ZENOX Trademark, Bombay High Court, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute, Cadila Health Care Case, K R Chinna Krishna Chettiar, Hiralal Prabhudas Case, Trademark Law India, Intellectual Property Law, Pharmaceutical Branding, Deceptive Similarity, Phonetic Similarity, Trademark Litigation, Commercial IP Suit, Permanent Injunction, Trademark Registration, Pharmaceutical Products, Public Health and Trademark Law, Passing Off Action, Trademark Enforcement, Intellectual Property Rights, Bombay HC Judgment, Pharma Trademark Case, Trademark Protection India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Zenlabs India & Anr., High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial IP Suit No. 535 of 2016, decided on 15.06.2026. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for using the mark “ZENOX” in relation to pharmaceutical products, alleging infringement of its registered trademark “ZINOX” and passing off. The Court found that the rival marks were visually and phonetically similar and that use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion, particularly because the products were medicinal in nature. Applying the principles laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Court held that stricter standards apply in pharmaceutical trademark disputes. The suit was decreed, permanent injunction was granted, and costs of ₹5,00,000 were imposed on each defendant.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Bombay High Court building, pharmaceutical medicine packaging, prescription medicines, trademark registration certificates, legal files, and courtroom imagery. Display bold headline text: “BOMBAY HC PROTECTS ZINOX”, “ZENOX MARK RESTRICTED”, and “PHARMA TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT”. Show a side-by-side comparison of “ZINOX” and “ZENOX” with highlighted phonetic similarity and a warning symbol indicating risk of consumer confusion. Include scales of justice, medical symbols, trademark logos, legal documents, and a prominent injunction stamp. Use a professional blue, white, red, and gold color scheme. Emphasize public health concerns, pharmaceutical trademark protection, deceptive similarity, passing off, and the application of Cadila principles. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs. Gujarat Pesticides

Brief Legal News Write-Up

Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 29.05.2026 : Case No.: C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024 : Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4118 : Court: High Court of Delhi : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Jyoti Singh

The Court considered a dispute concerning the validity of a copyright registration granted in respect of an artistic work and packaging containing the mark “ZOOOK”. The case arose from allegations that the copyright registration had been obtained on the basis of an inaccurate Search Certificate despite the existence of conflicting trademark rights claimed by the petitioner and pending trademark disputes between the parties.

The principal question before the Court was whether the copyright registration was liable to be cancelled on account of procedural irregularities, including issuance of an erroneous Search Certificate and non-compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Search Certificate issued during the copyright registration process was contrary to the Trade Marks Register and failed to properly account for conflicting marks. The Court held that the copyright registration process was procedurally flawed and that the petitioner, being a prior adopter and registered proprietor of the ZOOOK marks, was a “person aggrieved” entitled to challenge the registration. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Rule 70(9) and failure to notify an interested party undermined the integrity of the registration process.

Accordingly, the Court revoked and cancelled the copyright registration granted in favour of Respondent No. 1, set aside the Search Certificate, revived the original copyright application for fresh consideration, and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter after hearing all concerned parties.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Delhi High Court Revokes Copyright Registration for “ZOOOK” Label Due to Defective Search Certificate and Procedural Violations

Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. is an important judgment at the intersection of trademark and copyright law. The ruling highlights the significance of procedural compliance in the grant of copyright registrations, especially where the artistic work incorporates a mark that is already the subject matter of trademark disputes.

The judgment is particularly relevant for businesses seeking protection of brand identities through both trademark and copyright regimes. It underscores the obligation of authorities to conduct proper scrutiny before granting registrations and reinforces the rights of prior trademark proprietors to challenge registrations that may adversely affect their interests.

The decision serves as a reminder that intellectual property rights cannot be examined in isolation and that copyright registration processes must adequately account for existing trademark rights and pending disputes.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Fortune Marketing Private Limited, claimed rights in the mark “ZOOOK” and asserted that it was the registered proprietor, prior adopter, and prior user of various ZOOOK trademarks. The dispute arose when Respondent No. 1 sought copyright registration for an artistic work, packaging, and label containing the expression “ZOOOK”.

The record revealed that Respondent No. 1 had earlier filed a trademark application containing the word ZOOOK. Following opposition by the petitioner, the application was withdrawn and was treated as withdrawn on 13.12.2022. Shortly thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed fresh trademark applications, including an application for registration of a packaging and label mark.

Before obtaining copyright registration, Respondent No. 1 sought a Search Certificate from the Trade Marks Registry. An Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01.03.2023 identified several conflicting marks, including the petitioner’s registered ZOOOK marks. Despite these findings, a Search Certificate dated 26.10.2023 was subsequently issued indicating that there were no similar registered marks. This certificate became the basis for grant of copyright registration in favour of Respondent No. 1.

The petitioner challenged the copyright registration before the Delhi High Court, contending that the registration had been obtained through a flawed process and that mandatory procedural safeguards had not been followed.

Dispute Before the Court

The principal dispute before the Court was whether the copyright registration granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 could be sustained despite the existence of conflicting trademark rights and procedural irregularities during the registration process.

The petitioner argued that the Search Certificate was factually incorrect because the Trade Marks Registry itself had previously identified conflicting marks belonging to the petitioner. It was also contended that the petitioner, being an interested and affected party, ought to have been notified under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 before the registration was granted.

The respondents defended the registration and sought to justify the procedure followed by the authorities. The Court was therefore required to determine whether the registration process complied with statutory requirements and whether the petitioner qualified as a “person aggrieved” entitled to seek rectification.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court carefully examined the sequence of events leading to the grant of copyright registration. It noted that the Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01.03.2023 expressly referred to conflicting marks, including those belonging to the petitioner. These conflicting marks had been identified because they were considered deceptively similar to the mark sought to be protected.

The Court found it significant that Respondent No. 1, while responding to the Search Report, had stated that registration of its mark remained pending, despite the fact that the earlier trademark application had already been withdrawn. The Court observed that this statement was factually incorrect.

The Court further noted that despite the existence of objections and conflicting marks, a Search Certificate was subsequently issued declaring that no similar marks existed. According to the Court, this certificate was contrary to the Trade Marks Register and formed the foundation for the grant of copyright registration. Since the process began with an inaccurate Search Certificate, the resulting registration was inherently vulnerable.

The Court relied upon its earlier decision in Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management GmbH & Co. KG v. Registrar of Copyrights, where copyright registration was challenged because the artistic work substantially incorporated a trademark belonging to another entity. In that case, the Court emphasized the requirement of originality and the impropriety of securing copyright protection over material derived from another party’s established trademark rights. The Court found the principles laid down in Hugo Boss applicable to the present dispute.

The Court also examined Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and concluded that the petitioner was clearly a “person aggrieved.” As a prior adopter, prior user, and registered proprietor of the ZOOOK marks, the petitioner possessed a real and tangible interest in the artistic work that had been registered.

Another significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning concerned Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. The Court held that Respondent No. 1 ought to have notified the petitioner because the petitioner had a clear interest in the subject matter of the application. The failure to issue notice deprived the petitioner of an opportunity to contest the registration and constituted a serious procedural defect. According to the Court, such non-compliance undermined the fairness and integrity of the registration process.

Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the copyright registration suffered from multiple procedural infirmities and could not be sustained.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court revoked and cancelled Copyright Registration No. A-153061/2024 granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 for the artistic work, label, and packaging titled “ZOOOK”. The Court also set aside the Search Certificate dated 26.10.2023.

The original copyright application was revived for fresh consideration by the competent authority. The Court directed that the matter should recommence from the stage following the Examination-cum-Search Report dated 01.03.2023. The authorities were directed to consider the relevant trademark status, issue a fresh Search Certificate, provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections and submissions, grant hearings to both sides, and conclude the exercise within four months. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying claims.

The petition was disposed of in these terms.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reinforces that copyright registration involving labels, packaging, or artistic works containing trademarks must be processed with due regard to existing trademark rights and pending trademark disputes.

The Court clarified that a Search Certificate contrary to the Trade Marks Register can vitiate the entire copyright registration process. The decision also affirms that prior trademark proprietors qualify as “persons aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act where the registered artistic work incorporates or affects their trademark rights.

Further, the ruling emphasizes the mandatory importance of compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, and confirms that failure to notify interested parties may render a copyright registration vulnerable to cancellation.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Fortune Marketing Private Limited Vs. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.

Date of Judgment/Order: 29.05.2026

Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4118

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Jyoti Singh

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Delhi High Court Cancels ZOOOK Copyright Registration Over Procedural Defects

2. ZOOOK Label Dispute: Delhi HC Revokes Copyright Registration

3. Copyright Registration Set Aside Due to Incorrect Search Certificate

4. Delhi High Court on Trademark and Copyright Overlap in ZOOOK Case

5. Rule 70(9) Violation Leads to Cancellation of Copyright Registration

6. Delhi HC Protects Prior Trademark Rights in ZOOOK Dispute

7. Copyright Registration Vulnerable If Search Certificate Is Incorrect: Delhi HC

8. Fortune Marketing Wins Challenge Against ZOOOK Copyright Registration

9. Delhi High Court Clarifies Rights of Prior Trademark Proprietors

10. Landmark Delhi HC Judgment on Copyright Registration and Trademark Conflicts

11. Hugo Boss Principle Applied in ZOOOK Copyright Dispute

12. Copyright and Trademark Interface Explained Through Delhi HC Judgment

Suggested SEO Tags:

Fortune Marketing Private Limited, Gujarat Pesticides, ZOOOK Trademark, ZOOOK Copyright Registration, Delhi High Court, Copyright Act 1957, Section 50 Copyright Act, Rule 70(9) Copyright Rules, Copyright Registration Cancellation, Trademark Rights, Intellectual Property Law, Trademark and Copyright Conflict, Copyright Rectification, Prior User Rights, Prior Trademark Proprietor, Search Certificate, Trade Marks Registry, Copyright Registration Procedure, Hugo Boss Case, Artistic Work Registration, Packaging Copyright, Label Copyright, Trademark Opposition, IP Litigation India, Copyright Law India, Delhi HC IP Division, Trademark Dispute, Copyright Dispute, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Fortune Marketing Private Limited v. Gujarat Pesticides & Ors., Delhi High Court, C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 24/2024, decided on 29.05.2026. The petitioner sought cancellation of a copyright registration granted in respect of the artistic work and packaging titled “ZOOOK,” contending that the registration was based on an inaccurate Search Certificate and obtained without compliance with Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013. The Delhi High Court held that the Search Certificate was contrary to the Trade Marks Register and that failure to notify an interested party undermined the registration process. Holding the petitioner to be a “person aggrieved” under Section 50 of the Copyright Act, the Court revoked the copyright registration, set aside the Search Certificate, revived the original application for fresh consideration, and directed a fresh decision after hearing all concerned parties.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Delhi High Court building, trademark and copyright registration certificates, legal files, courtroom imagery, and the disputed “ZOOOK” label prominently displayed. Include bold headline text: “DELHI HC CANCELS COPYRIGHT”, “ZOOOK REGISTRATION REVOKED”, and “SEARCH CERTIFICATE FAULTY”. Show a visual comparison of trademark rights versus copyright registration with warning symbols highlighting procedural violations. Include scales of justice, intellectual property symbols, official registry documents, and a red cancellation stamp across the copyright certificate. Use a professional legal theme with blue, gold, white, and red accents. Emphasize Rule 70(9), prior trademark rights, copyright rectification, and the interaction between trademark and copyright law. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

Brief Legal News Write-Up

Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 17.06.2026 : Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 23 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 2089 of 2026 : Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13254 : Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

The Court considered a dispute concerning the scope of the Registrar’s power to extend time for filing evidence in trademark rectification proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The case arose from allegations that the Registrar had wrongly permitted a rectification applicant to file an affidavit of evidence after a delay of more than three years by invoking powers under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act.

The principal question before the Court was whether the two-month time limit prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 for filing an evidence affidavit is mandatory or merely directory and whether the Registrar possesses power to extend such time even after expiry of the stipulated period.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that Rule 45 prescribes a procedural timeline and not an inflexible limitation period. The Court held that Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act empowers the Registrar to extend timelines prescribed under the Rules even after expiry of the original period, provided sufficient cause is shown. The Court emphasized that procedural rules should not defeat substantive rights and that Rule 45 is directory rather than mandatory.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the challenge to the Registrar’s order and upheld the extension granted for filing the evidence affidavit in the rectification proceedings. The Court affirmed the Registrar’s authority to extend time under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act in appropriate cases.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Bombay High Court Holds Rule 45 Timeline for Trademark Evidence Is Directory and Extendable Under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act

Introduction

The Bombay High Court's judgment in Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr. is an important decision concerning procedural timelines in trademark proceedings. The ruling addresses a recurring issue before the Trade Marks Registry—whether failure to file evidence within the period prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 automatically results in loss of rights or whether the Registrar retains discretion to extend time.

The judgment is significant because trademark disputes frequently involve procedural deadlines that can affect valuable commercial rights. The Court's interpretation of Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 clarifies the relationship between statutory powers and procedural rules. The decision has substantial implications for trademark proprietors, rectification applicants, opposition parties, intellectual property practitioners, and businesses engaged in trademark litigation.

The ruling also contributes to the ongoing judicial debate regarding whether Rule 45 should be interpreted strictly or whether flexibility is permissible where justice requires extension of time.

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute arose from competing claims concerning the use of the expression “Black Diamond Motors.” The parties belonged to different factions of the same family business that had separated pursuant to a family settlement effective from 31 March 2014. The petitioner, Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd., was the registered proprietor of Trademark Registration No. 1842386 in Class 12 for “Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd.” registered on 22 July 2009.

Respondent No. 2, Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd., initiated rectification proceedings under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act seeking cancellation of the registered trademark. The petitioner filed its counter-statement, which was served on the rectification applicant on 14 November 2019. Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the rectification applicant was required to file its evidence affidavit within two months, making the deadline 14 January 2020.

No evidence affidavit was filed within the prescribed period. Instead, an interlocutory application accompanied by the evidence affidavit was filed on 16 March 2024, more than three years later. The Registrar of Trade Marks, by order dated 26 August 2025, allowed the application and accepted the evidence affidavit on record by invoking powers under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act.

Aggrieved by the Registrar’s order, the petitioner filed the present statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act before the Bombay High Court.

Dispute Before the Court

The primary issue before the Court was whether Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 creates a mandatory deadline that cannot be extended after expiry of the stipulated period.

The petitioner argued that judicial precedents, particularly Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 813 and Mahesh Gupta v. Registrar of Trademarks, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1750, established that the timeline under Rule 45 is mandatory and that failure to comply results in abandonment of the right to file evidence. According to the petitioner, the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to revive a right that had already been lost.

The respondent argued that Rule 45 merely prescribes a procedural timeline and that Section 131 expressly grants power to extend time prescribed by the Rules. Reliance was placed on Wyeth Holdings Corpn. v. Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks, 2006 SCC OnLine Guj 620 and Sahil Kohli v. Registrar of Trade Mark, 2018 SCC OnLine IPAB 55. The respondent contended that the Registrar’s discretionary power survives even after expiry of the original deadline.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. It observed that Section 131 empowers the Registrar to extend time prescribed for doing any act, except where the Act itself expressly excludes such extension. The Court noted that Section 131 specifically permits extension even after expiry of the original period.

The Court distinguished between timelines prescribed directly by the statute and timelines prescribed by subordinate legislation. According to the Court, Parliament consciously used different language in various provisions of the Trade Marks Act. While certain statutory deadlines cannot be altered, timelines created through subordinate legislation remain subject to the Registrar’s discretionary powers under Section 131 unless specifically excluded.

The Court disagreed with the reasoning adopted in Mahesh Gupta and related decisions to the extent they suggested that every timeline prescribed under the 2017 Rules automatically assumes the character of a mandatory statutory limitation. The Court held that such an interpretation would unduly restrict the operation of Section 131.

The judgment relied extensively upon Sahil Kohli v. Registrar of Trade Mark, 2018 SCC OnLine IPAB 55, where the Intellectual Property Appellate Board held that deletion of specific extension provisions from Rule 45 did not extinguish the Registrar’s statutory power under Section 131. The Court expressly endorsed this reasoning and agreed that Section 131 continues to provide a mechanism for extension of time.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rohan Builders (India) (P) Ltd. v. Berger Paints (India) Ltd., (2025) 10 SCC 802, while interpreting analogous language concerning extension of time. The Supreme Court had emphasized that courts should not judicially create limitation periods where the legislature has deliberately refrained from prescribing them. The Bombay High Court found the reasoning directly applicable to Section 131.

Further, the Court observed that Rule 45 functions as an administrative procedural provision rather than a strict limitation provision. Since Section 131 itself authorizes extension even after expiry of the prescribed period, requiring applications for extension to be filed before expiry would amount to adding words to the statute.

The Court also examined Rule 109 and rejected the argument that the one-month cap on extension prevented consideration of delayed applications. It held that the one-month extension operates from the date of the Registrar’s order granting extension and does not prohibit filing of extension applications after expiry of the original period.

Finally, the Court observed that procedural rules exist to facilitate adjudication and should not be interpreted in a manner that defeats substantive rights unless the legislature clearly mandates such consequences.

Final Decision of the Court

The Bombay High Court upheld the Registrar’s order permitting the rectification applicant to place its evidence affidavit on record despite the delay. The Court concluded that Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is directory and that the Registrar possesses jurisdiction under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act to extend time even after expiry of the original period.

The appeal filed by Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. was consequently rejected and the Registrar’s exercise of discretion was sustained. The rectification proceedings were allowed to continue with the evidence affidavit remaining on record.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment settles that the timeline prescribed under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 for filing evidence in opposition and rectification proceedings is directory and not mandatory.

The Court clarified that Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act confers substantive statutory power upon the Registrar to extend procedural timelines prescribed under the Rules, including after expiry of the original period, where sufficient cause exists.

The decision also emphasizes that subordinate legislation cannot be interpreted in a manner that nullifies a statutory discretionary power expressly granted by Parliament. The ruling is likely to have substantial impact on trademark opposition and rectification proceedings across India where parties seek condonation of delay and extension of procedural timelines.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr.

Date of Judgment/Order: 17.06.2026

Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 23 of 2026 with Interim Application No. 2089 of 2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13254

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Bombay High Court Holds Rule 45 Timeline Under Trade Marks Rules Is Directory

2. Black Diamond Motors Case: Bombay HC Clarifies Registrar’s Power Under Section 131

3. Registrar Can Extend Time Beyond Rule 45 Deadline, Rules Bombay High Court

4. Landmark Trademark Procedural Ruling by Bombay High Court Explained

5. Rule 45 and Section 131 Trade Marks Act: Bombay HC Analysis

6. Delay in Filing Trademark Evidence Can Be Condoned, Says Bombay HC

7. Black Diamond Motors v Registrar of Trade Marks: Key IP Law Judgment

8. Bombay High Court Interprets Rule 45 of Trade Marks Rules 2017

9. Extension of Time in Trademark Rectification Proceedings Explained

10. Trade Marks Act Section 131 Receives Major Judicial Interpretation

11. Bombay HC Rejects Mandatory Interpretation of Rule 45 Timeline

12. Important Trademark Litigation Judgment on Procedural Deadlines

Suggested SEO Tags:

Black Diamond Motors, Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay High Court, Trade Marks Act 1999, Trade Marks Rules 2017, Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules, Section 131 Trade Marks Act, Trademark Rectification, Trademark Opposition, Evidence Affidavit, Trademark Litigation India, Intellectual Property Law, Trademark Registration, Trademark Procedure, IP Litigation, Trademark Registry, Commercial IP Disputes, Trademark Appeal, Section 91 Trade Marks Act, Sahil Kohli Case, Mahesh Gupta Case, Sun Pharma Case, Rohan Builders Case, Trademark Evidence Filing, Trademark Deadlines, Procedural Law, Bombay HC Judgment, Intellectual Property Rights, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Anr., Bombay High Court, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 23 of 2026, Neutral Citation 2026:BHC-OS:13254, decided on 17.06.2026. The petitioner challenged the Registrar’s order permitting a rectification applicant to file an evidence affidavit after substantial delay by invoking Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The principal issue was whether the two-month timeline under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is mandatory or directory. The Bombay High Court held that Rule 45 prescribes a directory procedural timeline and that the Registrar possesses statutory power under Section 131 to extend time even after expiry of the prescribed period. Upholding the Registrar’s order, the Court dismissed the challenge and clarified the scope of extension powers in trademark opposition and rectification proceedings.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Bombay High Court building, trademark registration documents, Trade Marks Registry office visuals, legal files, courtroom imagery, and trademark symbols. Display bold headline text: “BOMBAY HC ON RULE 45”, “TIME EXTENSION ALLOWED”, and “SECTION 131 POWER UPHELD”. Include a visual timeline showing a missed filing deadline followed by judicial approval of extension. Depict legal documents marked “Evidence Affidavit”, scales of justice, statutory books labeled “Trade Marks Act, 1999” and “Trade Marks Rules, 2017”, and a highlighted phrase “Rule 45 is Directory”. Use a professional blue, gold, white, and red legal theme. Emphasize trademark rectification proceedings, procedural timelines, Registrar’s discretionary powers, and extension of time under trademark law. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

Abbott Product Operations AG Vs. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited

Brief Legal News Write-Up

Abbott Product Operations AG v. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2026 : Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 12147 of 2025 with Interim Application (L) No. 14697 of 2025 : Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13226 : Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arif S. Doctor

The Court considered a dispute concerning rectification and cancellation of a pharmaceutical trademark allegedly deceptively similar to a family of well-known registered trademarks. The case arose from allegations that the respondent obtained registration of the trademark “DUPHACHRIT” for pharmaceutical products despite the petitioner's longstanding rights in the “DUPHA” family of marks, including DUPHASTON and DUPHALAC.

The principal question before the Court was whether the registration of “DUPHACHRIT” was liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s earlier registered “DUPHA” family of marks and likely to cause confusion in relation to pharmaceutical products.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that “DUPHA” was the essential and distinctive source identifier of the petitioner’s family of marks and that the addition of the suffix “CHRIT” did not sufficiently distinguish the impugned mark. The Court held that “DUPHACHRIT” was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered marks and that the respondent’s adoption of the mark was dishonest and lacking bona fides, emphasizing that a stricter standard applies in pharmaceutical trademark disputes because confusion may adversely affect public health.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the rectification petition and directed that the trademark “DUPHACHRIT” bearing Registration No. 5027549 in Class 5 be rectified, cancelled, and removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Bombay High Court Orders Cancellation of “DUPHACHRIT” Trademark, Upholds Abbott’s Rights in “DUPHA” Family of Pharmaceutical Marks

Introduction

The Bombay High Court's decision in Abbott Product Operations AG v. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited & Anr. is a significant judgment concerning trademark protection in the pharmaceutical sector. The Court was called upon to determine whether a later registered pharmaceutical trademark could continue to remain on the Register when it closely resembled a long-established family of trademarks used by a leading pharmaceutical company.

The judgment is important because it reiterates the strict standards applicable to pharmaceutical trademarks. Courts have consistently recognized that confusion between medicinal products is fundamentally different from confusion involving ordinary consumer goods. Mistakes in pharmaceutical products may have serious health consequences, making trademark protection in this sector a matter of public interest as much as private commercial rights.

The ruling provides valuable guidance to pharmaceutical companies, trademark owners, intellectual property practitioners, regulatory authorities, and businesses involved in branding medicinal products.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Abbott Product Operations AG, filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification, cancellation, and removal of the trademark “DUPHACHRIT” from the Register of Trade Marks. The impugned trademark had been registered in Class 5 on 1 July 2021 in the name of Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited.

The petitioner traced the origin of its rights to the year 1949 when its predecessors coined and adopted the mark “DUPHAR,” derived from the expression “Dutch Pharmaceuticals.” Over the decades, a number of trademarks containing the distinctive element “DUPHA” were adopted and registered, including DUPHAR, DUPHASTON, DUPHALAC, DUPHALAC FIBER, DUPHAPRO, DUPHABEARS, DUPHACHEWS, DUPHAACTIVE, and DUPHAPLUS. These marks collectively came to be known as the petitioner’s “DUPHA family of marks.”

The petitioner's earliest Indian registration dated back to 22 March 1951. The Court noted that products sold under the marks DUPHASTON and DUPHALAC generated substantial sales and enjoyed significant goodwill both in India and internationally. The petitioner also produced evidence of extensive promotional activities and prior enforcement actions undertaken to protect its trademark rights.

In August 2024, the petitioner became aware of the respondent’s registration of “DUPHACHRIT” and issued a cease-and-desist notice seeking voluntary cancellation of the registration. The respondent refused, asserting that the marks were phonetically dissimilar. Consequently, the petitioner instituted rectification proceedings before the Bombay High Court.

Dispute Before the Court

The principal issue before the Court was whether the trademark “DUPHACHRIT” had been wrongly entered on the Register and whether it was liable to be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The petitioner argued that “DUPHA” was the dominant and essential feature of its family of marks and that the respondent had merely added the suffix “CHRIT” to create a deceptively similar mark. It was contended that consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would likely associate the impugned mark with the petitioner’s well-known pharmaceutical products. The petitioner further argued that pharmaceutical trademarks are subject to a stricter standard because even a small possibility of confusion may have serious consequences.

The respondent contended that trademarks must be considered as a whole and that “CHRIT” created a distinct commercial identity. It argued that “DUPHA” was common to the pharmaceutical trade, that several third-party marks containing the same prefix existed, and that the petitioner could not claim an exclusive monopoly over the prefix. The respondent also relied upon Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act and argued that rights existed only in the composite marks and not in an isolated component thereof.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the principles governing deceptive similarity in pharmaceutical trademarks.

The Court first noted that the petitioner was the prior registered proprietor of numerous “DUPHA” formative marks, many of which had existed for decades. It observed that “DUPHA” was not generic or descriptive and was historically derived from “Dutch Pharmaceuticals.” The Court further emphasized that the products sold under the impugned mark and the petitioner’s mark DUPHASTON contained the same active pharmaceutical ingredient, namely dydrogesterone.

The Court relied extensively upon the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73. The principles laid down in Cadila require consideration of visual, phonetic, and structural similarity, the nature of goods, the class of purchasers, and the circumstances in which products are purchased and consumed. The Court highlighted that Cadila mandates a stricter standard for pharmaceutical products because confusion may adversely affect health and life itself.

The Court also referred to Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 408, which reaffirmed that even the slightest possibility of confusion in medicinal products warrants judicial intervention and that public interest and purity of the register remain paramount considerations.

While considering the respondent’s argument that marks must be compared as a whole, the Court observed that the dominant feature “DUPHA” immediately connected the impugned mark with the petitioner’s family of marks. The addition of the suffix “CHRIT” was insufficient to eliminate the association created by the distinctive prefix. The Court held that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would likely perceive “DUPHACHRIT” as another member of the petitioner’s “DUPHA” family of products.

The Court also rejected the contention that prescription medicines are immune from confusion. Relying on Cadila, it noted that prescription requirements often do not prevent confusion because medicines are frequently sold over the counter, prescriptions may be difficult to read, and human error by doctors or pharmacists cannot be ruled out.

The Court further relied upon Ciba Ltd. Basle Switzerland v. M. Ramalingam and reiterated that the primary duty of the Court in rectification proceedings is to maintain the purity of the Register and protect the public from confusion. It emphasized that trademark disputes of this nature are not merely contests between rival traders but involve broader public interest considerations.

The Court found that the respondent had failed to provide any convincing explanation for adopting the term “DUPHA,” especially when it was neither descriptive nor generic. Considering the petitioner’s longstanding reputation, the Court concluded that the adoption was dishonest and intended to take advantage of the goodwill associated with the petitioner’s marks.

The Court also rejected arguments based on alleged third-party use, holding that mere entries on the Register do not establish that a mark is common to the trade. It relied upon Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142 and Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Riya Chemy, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5077, to hold that the burden of proving extensive third-party use lies on the party asserting it and that a registrant cannot simultaneously claim registration while arguing that the essential feature of the mark is common to the trade.

Final Decision of the Court

The Bombay High Court allowed the rectification petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court directed that the entry relating to the trademark “DUPHACHRIT” bearing Registration No. 5027549 in Class 5 be rectified, cancelled, and removed from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court made no order as to costs. The connected interim application was disposed of as a consequence of the final decision.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reaffirms that in pharmaceutical trademark disputes, courts must apply a stricter standard when assessing deceptive similarity because confusion may affect public health and safety. Even minor variations in suffixes or additional elements may not be sufficient to distinguish a mark where the dominant and source-identifying feature remains substantially identical.

The decision also reinforces the legal recognition of a “family of marks” doctrine in trademark law. Where a trader has established extensive use and reputation in a distinctive series of marks sharing a common element, a later entrant may not adopt that essential feature merely by adding a different suffix or variation.

Further, the judgment emphasizes that the purity of the Register remains a central consideration in rectification proceedings and that dishonest adoption of a well-known trademark element will not be permitted to remain on the Register.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Abbott Product Operations AG Vs. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited & Anr.

Date of Judgment/Order: 15.06.2026

Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 12147 of 2025; Interim Application (L) No. 14697 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:13226

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Arif S. Doctor

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Bombay High Court Cancels DUPHACHRIT Trademark in Abbott’s DUPHA Family Marks Case

2. Abbott Wins Trademark Rectification Against DUPHACHRIT Registration

3. Bombay HC Applies Strict Standard to Pharmaceutical Trademark Dispute

4. DUPHACHRIT Removed from Trademark Register: Key Bombay High Court Judgment

5. Family of Marks Doctrine Upheld in Pharmaceutical Trademark Case

6. Bombay High Court Protects Abbott’s DUPHA Family of Trademarks

7. Pharmaceutical Trademark Confusion and Public Interest: Important Bombay HC Ruling

8. Trademark Rectification Under Section 57: Analysis of Abbott v Menschlich Healthcare

9. Bombay HC Reaffirms Cadila Principles in Pharmaceutical Trademark Disputes

10. Dishonest Adoption of Pharmaceutical Trademark Leads to Cancellation of Registration

11. Public Interest and Purity of Register: Bombay HC Trademark Judgment Explained

12. DUPHASTON and DUPHALAC Reputation Protected by Bombay High Court

Suggested SEO Tags:

Trademark Rectification, Pharmaceutical Trademark, Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 57 Trade Marks Act, Abbott Product Operations AG, Menschlich Healthcare, DUPHACHRIT, DUPHASTON, DUPHALAC, Family of Marks, Deceptive Similarity, Pharmaceutical Branding, Bombay High Court, Trademark Cancellation, Trademark Registration, Intellectual Property Law, Cadila Health Care Case, Macleods Pharmaceuticals Case, Trademark Litigation India, Public Interest in Trademark Law, Purity of Register, Trademark Dispute, Pharmaceutical Industry, Brand Protection, Well Known Trademark, Trademark Jurisprudence, IP Litigation, Trade Mark Rectification Proceedings, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Abbott Product Operations AG v. Menschlich Healthcare (OPC) Private Limited & Anr., Bombay High Court, Commercial Miscellaneous Petition (L) No. 12147 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2026:BHC-OS:13226, decided on 15.06.2026. The petitioner sought rectification and cancellation of the trademark “DUPHACHRIT” under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging deceptive similarity with its long-established “DUPHA” family of pharmaceutical marks. The Bombay High Court held that “DUPHACHRIT” was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered marks, that the adoption of the mark was dishonest, and that a stricter standard applies in pharmaceutical trademark disputes due to public health concerns. The Court allowed the petition and directed cancellation and removal of the impugned trademark from the Register of Trade Marks.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Bombay High Court building, pharmaceutical branding elements, trademark symbols (™), medicine strips, prescription drug packaging, and legal documents. Prominently display the text: “BOMBAY HC CANCELS DUPHACHRIT”, “ABBOTT WINS TRADEMARK CASE”, and “DUPHA FAMILY OF MARKS PROTECTED”. Include visual comparison of “DUPHASTON”, “DUPHALAC”, and “DUPHACHRIT” with highlighted common prefix “DUPHA”. Show scales of justice, a trademark registration certificate being cancelled, and a red stamp reading “REMOVED FROM REGISTER”. Use a professional legal and pharmaceutical theme with blue, white, red, and gold accents. Emphasize public health concerns, deceptive similarity, trademark rectification, and protection of well-known pharmaceutical brands. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

Astral Ltd. Vs. Astral Marketing Syndicate

Brief Legal News Write-Up

Astral Ltd. v. M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2026 : Case No.: CS(COMM) 294/2024, I.A. 16193/2025 : Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4706 : Court: High Court of Delhi : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

The Court considered a dispute concerning territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. The case arose from allegations that the defendant was using the mark “ASTRAL” in relation to its products and advertising the same through the online platform Justdial, thereby causing confusion with the plaintiff’s well-known trademark.

The principal question before the Court was whether the Delhi High Court could exercise territorial jurisdiction when the defendant was based in Ahmedabad, but the allegedly infringing products were advertised through an interactive online platform accessible in Delhi and the plaintiff maintained a subordinate office in Delhi.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Tejas Karia observed that for deciding an application challenging jurisdiction at the threshold stage, the averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true. The Court held that listings on interactive online platforms such as Justdial, through which customers may access product catalogues, communicate with sellers, and place enquiries, can constitute a part of the cause of action for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. The Court further emphasized that the plaintiff’s subordinate office in Delhi, coupled with the online accessibility of the defendant’s products in Delhi, was sufficient to confer jurisdiction at this preliminary stage.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the defendant’s application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction while keeping the jurisdictional objections open for consideration at the appropriate stage of the suit.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Delhi High Court Holds Justdial Listing and Online Accessibility Sufficient to Confer Territorial Jurisdiction in Trademark Suit

Introduction

The Delhi High Court's decision in Astral Ltd. v. M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr. is a significant ruling on territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement and passing off actions involving internet-based commercial activities. As business transactions increasingly move online, courts are frequently required to determine whether digital advertisements, online product listings, and internet-based interactions are sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a particular court.

The judgment is particularly important for trademark owners, businesses operating through e-commerce and online directories, intellectual property practitioners, and companies seeking to enforce their trademark rights across different jurisdictions. The Court clarified that online commercial presence through interactive platforms may constitute a part of the cause of action and can support territorial jurisdiction even when the defendant's principal place of business is located elsewhere.

The ruling reflects the evolving approach of Indian courts toward internet jurisdiction and reinforces the principle that digital accessibility and online commercial interaction may have important jurisdictional consequences.

Factual and Procedural Background

Astral Ltd. instituted a commercial suit seeking relief against M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate and another for alleged trademark infringement and passing off involving the mark “ASTRAL.”

During the pendency of the suit, Defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint. The principal ground raised by the defendant was that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

The defendant argued that it carried on business exclusively from Ahmedabad, Gujarat. It was also contended that the plaintiff's principal place of business was situated in Ahmedabad. According to the defendant, no sale of the allegedly infringing products had taken place in Delhi and the mere existence of an online advertisement could not confer jurisdiction.

The plaintiff opposed the application and relied upon its pleadings that the defendant's products were advertised and offered for sale through the online platform Justdial. The plaintiff asserted that the Justdial listing was accessible throughout India, including Delhi, and enabled consumers to access product catalogues, initiate enquiries, communicate with the defendant, and place orders.

The plaintiff further pleaded that it maintained a sales and marketing office in Delhi and that customers within Delhi were likely to be confused by the defendant's use of the impugned mark.

The Court was therefore required to determine whether these pleadings were sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.

Dispute Before the Court

The central issue before the Court was whether the Delhi High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction to entertain the trademark infringement and passing off suit.

The defendant contended that both parties were based in Ahmedabad and that no actual commercial transaction involving the allegedly infringing products had been shown to have taken place in Delhi. According to the defendant, a listing on Justdial or an online advertisement accessible in Delhi could not by itself create jurisdiction.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant's products were being promoted and advertised through an interactive online platform accessible to consumers in Delhi. The plaintiff further contended that customers in Delhi could communicate with the defendant, access product information, and potentially place orders through the online platform. It was also argued that the plaintiff maintained a subordinate office in Delhi and therefore the Court possessed jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court was therefore called upon to examine whether online accessibility and digital commercial interaction constituted a sufficient part of the cause of action for jurisdictional purposes.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court began by reiterating the settled principle that while considering an objection to territorial jurisdiction at the threshold stage, the averments made in the plaint must be accepted as true. The Court emphasized that such objections are examined on the demurrer principle and do not require immediate adjudication of disputed facts.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the defendant's allegedly infringing products were listed and advertised on Justdial and that consumers throughout India, including Delhi, could access those listings. The listings enabled users to access product catalogues, obtain contact details, initiate communication, and send enquiries to the defendant.

The Court relied extensively upon its earlier decision in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Artura Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8642. In that case, the Court had applied the principles laid down in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, concerning internet jurisdiction. The Court had recognized the relevance of the “sliding scale test” and the “effects test” for determining whether online activities amount to purposeful availment of a forum.

The Court referred to the observations in Sun Pharmaceutical that a website containing interactive features such as a “Contact Us” page, downloadable product information, and customer communication mechanisms may be sufficient to establish prima facie jurisdiction at the threshold stage.

The Court also relied upon Ravinder Singh v. Regoshin Healthcare (P) Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3716, where it had been held that third-party platforms such as Justdial and IndiaMart operate as facilitators for commercial promotion and can contribute to the arising of a cause of action.

Another important precedent considered by the Court was Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968. In that decision, the Court had observed that targeting customers need not always involve aggressive marketing and that, in appropriate cases, the mere online presence of a website accessible within a territory may be sufficient.

The Court observed that Justdial was not merely a passive directory. The plaintiff had specifically pleaded that the listing enabled customer interaction, access to product catalogues, and communication with the defendant. Such functionality could reasonably be construed as facilitating commercial transactions.

The Court further held that whether actual transactions occurred in Delhi and whether customers in Delhi were genuinely confused were disputed factual issues that could only be resolved after evidence is led during trial.

The Court also considered the plaintiff's reliance on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff maintained a subordinate office in Delhi. Referring to Astral Ltd. v. Ajay Enterprises, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 10065, the Court reiterated that where part of the cause of action arises at a place where the plaintiff has a subordinate office, the courts at that location may also exercise jurisdiction.

The Court rejected the defendant's argument that failure to expressly invoke Section 134 in the plaint deprived the Court of jurisdiction. It held that jurisdiction depends upon substantive legal entitlement and not merely upon citation of statutory provisions.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Court held that the pleadings disclosed that part of the cause of action had arisen within Delhi because the defendant's allegedly infringing products were advertised and promoted through an online platform accessible to consumers in Delhi. The Court further found that the plaintiff maintained a subordinate office in Delhi, thereby supporting jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.

However, the Court clarified that the defendant's objections regarding territorial jurisdiction were kept open and could be raised at the appropriate stage during the trial. The suit was directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment reinforces the principle that in trademark infringement and passing off actions involving internet-based activities, online listings on interactive platforms such as Justdial may constitute a sufficient part of the cause of action to confer territorial jurisdiction.

The Court clarified that at the stage of deciding jurisdictional objections under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the pleadings must be accepted as true and disputed factual issues concerning actual sales, commercial transactions, or consumer confusion should ordinarily be left for trial.

The decision further confirms that where a plaintiff maintains a subordinate office within a jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arises there, the courts at that location may exercise jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 20 CPC.

Case Details:

Title of the Case: Astral Ltd. Vs. Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr.

Date of Judgment/Order: 15.06.2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 294/2024, I.A. 16193/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4706

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Delhi High Court Holds Justdial Listing Sufficient for Territorial Jurisdiction in Trademark Suit

2. Astral Ltd v Astral Marketing Syndicate: Delhi HC on Online Jurisdiction in Trademark Cases

3. Can Justdial Listings Confer Court Jurisdiction? Delhi High Court Answers

4. Delhi HC Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction in Online Trademark Infringement Cases

5. Interactive Websites and Trademark Litigation: Key Delhi High Court Ruling

6. Delhi High Court on Internet Jurisdiction and Trademark Infringement

7. Justdial Accessibility Creates Cause of Action in Delhi, Says High Court

8. Territorial Jurisdiction in E-Commerce Trademark Disputes Explained

9. Delhi HC Reaffirms Online Accessibility Test in Trademark Litigation

10. Trademark Infringement and Digital Commerce: Analysis of Astral Ltd Judgment

11. Delhi High Court on Section 134 Trade Marks Act and Online Sales Platforms

12. Internet-Based Trademark Disputes and Jurisdiction: Important Delhi HC Decision

Suggested SEO Tags:

Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Territorial Jurisdiction, Delhi High Court, Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 134 Trade Marks Act, Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Justdial, Online Jurisdiction, E Commerce Litigation, Intellectual Property Law, Trademark Litigation, Digital Commerce, Interactive Website, Internet Jurisdiction, Banyan Tree Case, Tata Sons Case, Online Advertising, Trademark Protection, Commercial Courts, Cause of Action, Trademark Disputes India, Jurisdiction in IP Cases, Delhi HC Judgment, Brand Protection, Passing Off Action, Online Marketplace Disputes, Civil Procedure Code, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

Astral Ltd. v. M/s Astral Marketing Syndicate & Anr., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 294/2024, Neutral Citation 2026:DHC:4706, decided on 15.06.2026. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because both parties were based in Ahmedabad. The plaintiff relied upon the defendant's Justdial listing, accessibility of the alleged infringing products in Delhi, and the plaintiff's subordinate office in Delhi. The Court held that interactive online listings capable of facilitating customer enquiries and commercial interaction can constitute part of the cause of action. Finding prima facie territorial jurisdiction in Delhi, the Court dismissed the application while keeping jurisdictional objections open for determination at the trial stage.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Delhi High Court building, trademark symbols (™), digital commerce graphics, and an online marketplace interface resembling Justdial. Display bold headlines: “DELHI HC ON ONLINE JURISDICTION”, “JUSTDIAL LISTING CAN CONFER JURISDICTION”, and “ASTRAL TRADEMARK CASE”. Include visuals showing a website listing, customer enquiry forms, digital shopping icons, maps connecting Ahmedabad and Delhi, scales of justice, and legal documents. Highlight phrases such as “Trademark Infringement”, “Online Accessibility”, “Territorial Jurisdiction”, and “E-Commerce Litigation”. Use a modern legal-tech design with blue, gold, white, and red accents suitable for lawyers, businesses, and trademark professionals. Emphasize the intersection of trademark law and digital commerce. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.

DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another Vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd.

Brief Legal News Write-Up

M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2026 : Case No.: CS(COMM) 1/2017, I.A. 18605/2025 : Neutral Citation: Not Available in Judgment : Court: High Court of Delhi : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

The Court considered a dispute concerning alleged contempt and violation of earlier judicial directions relating to the use of trademarks in online advertisements and keyword advertising. The case arose from allegations that Google and related entities continued to permit third parties to use the plaintiffs’ trademarks, including “AGARWAL”, “AGGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS” and “DRS Logistics”, in sponsored advertisements despite earlier court orders.

The principal question before the Court was whether the defendants had willfully disobeyed previous judgments by permitting the use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks in advertisement text, titles, URLs, and keyword-based search advertising.

After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Tejas Karia observed that the operative directions contained in the earlier judgments were confined to investigation of complaints concerning the use of trademarks as keywords and did not impose any obligation upon the defendants to proactively monitor all advertisements for use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks. The Court held that no willful disobedience of the earlier judgments had been established, emphasizing that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked where the directions are capable of more than one interpretation and the alleged conduct is not clearly contemptuous.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the contempt application and directed that if the plaintiffs identify future advertisements using their trademarks in advertisement text, titles, or URLs, they may notify the defendants, who shall investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with their policy.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.

Delhi High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea Against Google in Trademark Keyword Advertising Dispute

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has delivered an important judgment clarifying the scope of contempt proceedings arising from trademark disputes involving online advertising and search engine platforms. The decision in M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. addresses the increasingly significant issue of how trademark rights interact with keyword-based digital advertising.

The case is particularly relevant for trademark owners, technology companies, online advertising platforms, digital marketers, intellectual property practitioners, and businesses that rely on internet visibility for customer acquisition. The judgment clarifies the extent of obligations imposed upon online intermediaries and emphasizes that contempt proceedings cannot be used to expand the scope of earlier judicial directions.

The ruling also provides valuable guidance regarding keyword advertising, trademark enforcement in the digital environment, intermediary liability, and the standards required to establish willful disobedience of court orders.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiffs, M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. and another, instituted a commercial suit seeking protection of their trademarks, including “AGARWAL,” “AGGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS,” and “DRS Logistics.” The suit sought reliefs relating to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition.

During the pendency of the suit, the Court passed a judgment dated 30.10.2021 in applications filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court directed Google and the concerned defendants to investigate complaints made by the plaintiffs regarding the use of their trademarks and variations as keywords resulting in diversion of internet traffic. The Court further directed that if infringement or passing off was found, appropriate action should be taken to restrain advertisers and remove or block offending advertisements.

The defendants challenged the judgment before a Division Bench through FAO(OS)(COMM) 2/2022 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 22/2022. By a common judgment dated 10.08.2023, the Division Bench declined to interfere with the directions issued by the Single Judge.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs conducted searches in June 2025 and claimed that third-party sponsored links continued to appear when searches were made using the plaintiffs’ trademarks. According to the plaintiffs, these sponsored advertisements resulted in diversion of traffic and consumer confusion.

The plaintiffs issued a notice dated 17.06.2025 alleging violation of the earlier judgments. Thereafter, they filed the present application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against Google and related defendants for alleged willful disobedience of the earlier judgments.

The defendants opposed the application and asserted that they had complied with the directions contained in the earlier judgments and that no contempt was made out.

Dispute Before the Court

The primary controversy before the Court concerned the true scope of the earlier judgments passed in 2021 and 2023.

The plaintiffs argued that Google and the other defendants had undertaken before the Court that the plaintiffs’ trademarks would not appear in advertisement text, advertisement titles, or URLs of third-party advertisements. According to the plaintiffs, continued appearance of such advertisements amounted to deliberate and willful disobedience of the earlier judicial directions.

The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the earlier judgments dealt primarily with the issue of trademark use as keywords. They argued that the judgments required investigation of complaints received from trademark owners and did not impose any obligation to proactively monitor and block every advertisement appearing on the platform.

The Court was therefore required to determine whether the earlier directions extended beyond keyword advertising and whether the defendants had committed willful contempt by permitting the plaintiffs’ trademarks to appear in advertisement text, titles, or URLs.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The Court carefully examined the operative portions of the judgments dated 30.10.2021 and 10.08.2023.

The Court observed that the directions contained in the earlier judgments specifically required the defendants to investigate complaints made by the plaintiffs concerning use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks as keywords. The directions further required investigation of the overall effect of advertisements and removal or blocking of advertisements found to be infringing.

A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its analysis of the statement recorded in the order dated 22.01.2020. During those proceedings, Google had stated that, under its advertising policies, third parties were not permitted to use another proprietor’s trademark in advertisement text or advertisement titles and that the policy would be implemented in favour of the plaintiffs.

The Court noted that because of this statement, the plaintiffs had confined the controversy in the injunction proceedings to the issue of trademark use as keywords. Consequently, the earlier judgments were focused on keyword advertising rather than on the use of trademarks in advertisement text, advertisement titles, or URLs.

The Court held that the operative directions ultimately granted were narrower than the broad reliefs originally sought by the plaintiffs. While the plaintiffs had sought extensive restrictions on use of their trademarks, the final directions only required investigation of complaints relating to keyword usage.

The Court further emphasized the settled principles governing contempt jurisdiction. Reliance was placed upon Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran, (2014) 3 SCC 373, wherein the Supreme Court held that only explicit and self-evident directions contained in a judgment can form the basis of contempt proceedings.

The Court also referred to Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors., (2014) 16 SCC 204, Three Cheers Entertainment Private Limited v. CESE Limited, (2008) 16 SCC 592, and Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21. These authorities reiterate the principle that contempt proceedings are not maintainable where two reasonable interpretations of a court order are possible and where willful disobedience is not established.

The Court additionally relied upon Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture & Anr. v. Puneet Chhatwal & Ors., CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016, which recognized that the understanding of the alleged contemnor regarding the scope of the order is a relevant factor in determining whether contempt has occurred.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the judgments did not impose any obligation upon the defendants to proactively monitor all advertisements or independently prevent every possible use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks in advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Rather, the relevant policy framework contemplated action upon receipt of complaints.

The Court nevertheless clarified that the defendants remained bound by their recorded statement that trademark use in advertisement text, advertisement titles, and URLs would not be permitted under their policy and that complaints concerning such usage would be investigated and addressed.

Final Decision of the Court

The Delhi High Court dismissed the contempt application.

The Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish any willful disobedience or violation of the directions contained in the earlier judgments. It found that the operative directions related primarily to the use of trademarks as keywords and did not require proactive monitoring of advertisement text, titles, or URLs.

The Court further noted that the impugned URLs referred to in the application had already been removed following the plaintiffs’ notice and pursuant to subsequent court orders.

The Court granted liberty to the plaintiffs to notify the defendants if they discover future advertisements using the plaintiffs’ trademarks in advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Upon receiving such complaints, the defendants were directed to investigate and take appropriate action in accordance with their policies as expeditiously as possible.

Point of Law Settled

The judgment clarifies that contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked to expand or reinterpret the scope of an earlier judicial order. Only clear, explicit, and self-evident directions can form the basis of contempt proceedings.

The Court reaffirmed that where a judicial order is reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, contempt proceedings cannot succeed unless willful disobedience is clearly established.

In the context of online trademark enforcement, the judgment further clarifies that directions requiring investigation of complaints regarding keyword advertising do not automatically impose a broader obligation upon online platforms to proactively monitor and prevent every instance of trademark use in advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Such obligations must arise either from specific judicial directions or from the platform’s own policies and complaint-handling mechanisms.

---

Case Details:

Title of the Case: DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another Vs. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Date of Judgment/Order: 15.06.2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 1/2017, I.A. 18605/2025

Neutral Citation: Not Available in Judgment

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

---

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

---

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Delhi High Court Dismisses Contempt Plea Against Google in Trademark Advertising Case

2. Trademark Keyword Advertising: Delhi HC Clarifies Scope of Google’s Obligations

3. DRS Logistics v Google India: Delhi High Court on Trademark Use in Online Ads

4. No Contempt by Google in Trademark Keyword Advertising Dispute, Says Delhi HC

5. Delhi HC Explains Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction in Trademark Cases

6. Online Trademark Enforcement and Keyword Advertising: Key Delhi HC Ruling

7. Delhi High Court on Trademark Use in Ad Titles, Ad Text and URLs

8. Google Not Liable for Contempt in DRS Logistics Trademark Dispute

9. Delhi HC Clarifies Distinction Between Trademark Keywords and Advertisement Content

10. Important Delhi High Court Judgment on Intermediary Liability and Trademark Protection

11. Trademark Owners and Online Ads: Lessons from DRS Logistics v Google

12. Delhi High Court Reaffirms Complaint-Based Enforcement in Trademark Advertising Disputes

Suggested SEO Tags:

Trademark Infringement, Trademark Law India, Google Ads, Keyword Advertising, Online Advertising Law, DRS Logistics, Aggarwal Packers and Movers, Delhi High Court, Intellectual Property Law, Trademark Litigation, Trademark Keywords, Ad Text Trademark Use, Sponsored Links, Search Engine Advertising, Google India, Trademark Enforcement, Passing Off, Intermediary Liability, Contempt of Court, Contempt Proceedings, Digital Advertising Law, Trademark Protection, Online Trademark Disputes, Commercial Courts Act, Trademark Jurisprudence, Search Engine Liability, Brand Protection, IP Litigation India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Headnote of the Judgment:

M/s DRS Logistics (P) Ltd. & Another v. Google India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 1/2017, decided on 15.06.2026. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that Google and related entities violated earlier judgments concerning use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks in online advertising. The Delhi High Court held that the operative directions in the earlier judgments were confined to investigation of complaints regarding trademark use as keywords and did not impose a proactive monitoring obligation concerning advertisement text, titles, or URLs. Finding no willful disobedience of the earlier orders, the Court dismissed the contempt application while permitting the plaintiffs to report future violations for action under the defendants’ policies.

Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:

Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail focused on a landmark Delhi High Court judgment involving Google, trademark law, online advertising, and keyword advertising disputes. Show the Delhi High Court building in the background along with digital advertising and search engine graphics. Prominently display the text: “DELHI HC RULES ON GOOGLE ADS”, “TRADEMARK KEYWORD DISPUTE”, and “NO CONTEMPT FOUND”. Include visual elements such as Google-style search results, sponsored advertisements, trademark symbols (™), scales of justice, legal documents, and a courtroom setting. Highlight phrases like “Keyword Advertising”, “Trademark Protection”, and “Online Ads Liability”. Use a modern legal-tech design with blue, white, red, and gold accents. The thumbnail should convey the intersection of technology, intellectual property, and court regulation of digital advertising. Include visual cues showing distinction between “Keywords” and “Ad Text”. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.