COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. v. SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

Judgment

#1. The Appellant challenges impugned judgment dated

03.07.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein the application filed by the Respondents seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 (“CPC”), was allowed. The learned Judge held that the Appellant had failed to establish a cause of action to maintain the suit, deeming the same to be purely illusory.

#2. Parties are referred to as they stood before the learned Single Signature Not Verified 1 “CPC” hereinafter Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:18.03.2026 16:09:26 RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 Judge for ease of reference in these proceedings. BRIEF FACTS

#3. The factual position in a nutshell, as averred in the plaint, is that the Plaintiff, incorporated in 1983, is an Indian agro-chemical company and the parent entity of the Coromandel Group, which comprises of Agrimas Chemicals Ltd.2 and Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd.3 (under liquidation). The Plaintiff asserts that under an Agreement dated 27.01.2000, CAPL was appointed as the marketing agent for the Plaintiff’s products. Subsequently, an Agreement dated

06.12.2004 was executed between the Plaintiff and CAPL, wherein CAPL was granted a royalty-based license to use the Plaintiff’s trademarks, including “PADAN 4G” and “PADAN 50SP”.

#4. The Plaintiff contends that Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd.4 (predecessor of Defendant No.1), which later became Sumitomo Chemical Takeda Agro Co. Ltd.5 (a Joint Venture with Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd.), and eventually absorbed by Defendant No. 1, holds the registration for the word mark “PADAN” and the device mark “ ” under Class 05, dated 18.05.1970 and 25.03.2010 respectively, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The Plaintiff claims that the non-use of the registration by the Defendants in India renders it liable to be cancelled under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 2 “Agrimas” hereinafter 3 “CAPL” hereinafter 4 “Takeda” hereinafter 5 “Sumitomo JV” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:18.03.2026 16:09:26 RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025

#5. The Plaintiff avers that it entered into an agreement with Takeda for the procurement of Cartap Hydrochloride and was granted a non-exclusive and royalty-free license to use the mark “PADAN”6 in India with respect to insecticides and pesticides.

#6. The Plaintiff asserts that it had been using the trademark “PADAN” continuously in India since 1988. In 2006, it independently designed the artistic work for the packaging and labelling of the product bearing the impugned mark, i.e., “ ” which it claims is protected under Section 14 of the Copyright Act,

#1957. It is further asserted that the Plaintiff has developed substantial goodwill through extensive sales, promotion, and quality control which has resulted in the acquisition of secondary meaning and exclusive association of the “PADAN” mark with the Plaintiff.

#7. The Plaintiff alleges that neither Takeda nor the Defendants or their alleged licensees have used the impugned mark in India. The

Plaintiff claims exclusive use of the mark “PADAN” and its associated goodwill.

#8. The Plaintiff states that in 2007, upon the compound becoming public, the Defendant ceased its supply and granted the Plaintiff a temporary license vide email dated 24.12.2007 to source the product Signature Not Verified 6 Alternatively referred to as “impugned mark” Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:18.03.2026 16:09:26 RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 from other suppliers during 2008 or till resumption of supply by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff avers that the supply did not resume and the Plaintiff continued use with Defendant’s knowledge. The Plaintiff further contends that Defendant No. 2 manufactured similar insecticide/pesticide under the marks “SANVEX” and “SUMI TAZ”, i.e., “ ” in India but in May 2023, the Plaintiff claims to have discovered that Defendant No. 2 launched a similar insecticide/pesticide using the same compound with deceptively similar packaging that of the Plaintiff’s. The comparison of the Plaintiff’s packaging and Defendant No.2’s packaging and Defendant No.2’s packaging is as follows: Plaintiff Defendant No. 2

#9. Aggrieved by the alleged dishonest adoption and imitation of its mark, the Plaintiff instituted the present suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing in the trademark “PADAN” or any other identical or deceptively similar Signature Not Verified trademark/packaging/artwork in relation to insecticides and agro- Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:18.03.2026 16:09:26 RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 chemicals on grounds of copyright infringement, passing off and dilution of goodwill, along with rendition of account or damages of Rs. 2,00,01,000/- with costs. The Plaintiff also sought an injunction against interference with its business under the “PADAN” mark, along with declaration that Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the trademark/packaging “PADAN”, with goodwill and reputation acquired thereunder in India.

#10. Thereafter, the Defendants preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to disclose any cause of action. They contended that the Plaintiff’s claims were illusory, baseless, and did not meet the threshold required for the maintainability of the suit. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT

#11. The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint relying on the principles laid down in Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Ltd.7 and Vodafone International Holdings BV v. UOI8 by holding that the Plaintiff could not maintain the suit on behalf of CAPL since it was a distinct legal entity and Defendant No. 1’s non-exclusive licensee and the communications referred to by the Plaintiff were between Defendant No. 1 and CAPL, not directly with the Plaintiff. Furthermore, since CAPL was undergoing liquidation, its affairs were under the control of the Resolution Professional, leaving the Plaintiff without a valid claim on behalf of CAPL. Signature Not Verified 7 [1897] AC 22: (1895-99) All ER Rep 33 (HL) 8 (2012) 6 SCC 613 Signed By:GUNN Signing Date:18.03.2026 16:09:26 RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025

#12. The learned Single Judge further observed that certain material documents were deliberately withheld by the Plaintiff, including the non-exclusive license granted by Takeda to CAPL and Distribution Agreement9 (“DA”) dated 26.12.2005. Relying on the judgment in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Education Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust10 and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansali11, the learned Judge opined that since the DA was mentioned in the plaint, it became incorporated by reference therein. Hence, the Court was entitled to examine the contents of the DA, even if it was filed by the Defendants. Upon reviewing the DA, the learned Single Judge found that it was between CAPL and Defendant No. 1, not between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. This agreement granted CAPL a non-exclusive license to use the impugned mark but did not assign any rights to CAPL regarding the mark. Further, by relying on Hilton Roulunds Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax12, it was reasoned that any use of the impugned mark by CAPL, as a licensee, would inure to Defendant No. 1, the registered proprietor.

#13. Regarding the claim of copyright infringement, the learned Single Judge noted that the Assignment Deed dated 04.04.2006 between Mr. Uttam Sharma and CAPL lacked a specific period for assignment. Therefore, as per Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Agreement was deemed to be valid for five years, and as the five-year period had since expired, the Plaintiff’s claim for copyright