Ms. Rajeshwari H. and Ms. Nupur A. Goswami, Advs v. DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN. ANR on 22 Dec 2025

Judgment

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), South East district, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the Signature Not Verified 1 “CPC” hereinafter Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal would be referred to by the same status and name as they have been referred to as before the learned District Judge. Thus, the “appellant” would be addressed as “plaintiff” and the “respondent” would be referred as “defendant”.

3. The appellant hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing ayurvedic and herbal medicines and supplements under the trade name “M/s Dindayal Industries Limited”, earlier known as “Dindayal Aushadhi Pvt. Ltd.” The plaintiff claims to be the prior adopter and continuous user of the name/mark “DINDAYAL”, , and its formative variants in respect of its goods since 1927. The plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of several trademarks comprising or containing the mark “DINDAYAL” across multiple classes under the Trade Marks Act, 19992.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that, by virtue of long, extensive and widespread commercial use, the trademark “DINDAYAL” has acquired substantial goodwill, reputation, distinctiveness and secondary meaning in relation to the plaintiff’s ayurvedic products throughout Signature Not Verified 2 “Trade Marks Act” hereinafter Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 India.

5. The respondents hereinafter referred to as the “defendants”, are also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling ayurvedic products under trade name “DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN”. Defendant No. 2, Mr. Ravi Kumar, is stated to own and control Defendant No. 1, which operates from Main Bazar, Ellenabad, District Sirsa, Haryana.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have adopted and are using the marks “DINDAYAL”, “ ”, “DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN” or “ ” and the domain name www.dindayalayurved.com (hereinafter, “impugned marks”) , which, according the plaintiff, are phonetically, structurally and conceptually identical to the plaintiff’s trademark “DINDAYAL”, “ ”, “ ” and its formative variants. The plaintiff further claims that the defendants have not only copied the plaintiff’s trademark but have also replicated the plaintiff’s ayurvedic product range with the intent to ride upon the goodwill, reputation and distinctiveness that the plaintiff alleges to have acquired in the mark “DINDAYAL” owing to its continuous use since 1927.

7. Signature Not Verified Briefly stating the facts leading up to the present appeal, the Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 plaintiff instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, importing, offering for sale, advertising and directly or indirectly dealing in goods containing impugned marks on the grounds of trademark infringement and passing off. Alongside, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from using the impugned marks during the pendency of the suit.

8. By way of an order dated 17.01.2022, the learned District Judge initially granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction to the plaintiff till the next date of hearing and also allowed the plaintiff’s prayer for appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants with certain directions. However, the said ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff was vacated vide impugned

order dated 18.09.2023, whereby the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.

9. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the plaintiff prays through this present appeal to set aside the order dated 18.09.2023 passed by learned District Judge in CS (COMM) No. 544/2021 titled as “M/s Dindayal Industries vs M/s Ayurved Bhawan” and its consequential effect of refusal to grant temporary injunction. FACTS Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024

10. Plaint

10.1 As per the plaint, the plaintiff, claimed to be formerly known as Dindayal Aushadhi Pvt. Ltd., a company in incorporated in 1992 under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and engaged the business of manufacturing ayurvedic and herbal medicines and supplements. It was averred that the plaintiff and its predecessors have a long-standing association with ayurvedic treatment and practice. Shri Anand Mohan Chhaparwal, the Managing Director is stated to be the great-great- grandson of Late Shri Dindayal Chhaparwal, who founded the family’s ayurvedic healing tradition nearly 250 years ago and was honoured as Raj Vaidya by Late Shri Srimant Mahadji Scindia, the then ruler of the province.

10.2 The plaintiff stated that the Chhaparwal family had adopted the name/mark “DINDAYAL” in 1927 to honour their ancestor and to promote their long-standing ayurvedic tradition and has since then continuously used the said trademark. The details of trademark registrations in favour of plaintiff are mentioned below: S.

1. Trademark Trademark No. Class Date of Application 742630 3 09/06/1997 Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024

8. 742631 5 09/06/1997 742632 30 09/06/1997 742633 32 09/06/1997 DINDAYAL AUSHADHI 3033615 3075082 3033597 3033594 3033612 3033603 DINDAYAL BALVIKAS DINDAYAL BREATHEZEE DINDAYAL CARE

9. 10. DINDAYAL CHATPAT

11. DINDAYAL 3033585 COUGHCARE

12. DINDAYAL FEMICARE 13. DINDAYAL LIVCARE

14. DINDAYAL SANJEEVAN 15. DINDAYAL SLEEPEZEE 16. DINDAYAL SLIMTRIM 3033595 3033592 3062838 3033605 3033583 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 17/08/2015 12/10/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015 24/09/2015 17/08/2015 17/08/2015

10.3 As per the plaint, the plaintiff offers “complete Ayurvedic solutions” and manufactures over 500 medicines and related products under the trademark “DINDAYAL”. Its formulations cover multiple therapeutic categories and are produced at state-of-the-art facilities with Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 stringent quality standards. By virtue of the aforesaid facts and continuous use, the plaintiff claims that the trademark “DINDAYAL” has acquired the status of a well-known trademark in the field of Ayurveda.

10.4 It was further stated that the plaintiff has registered the domain name www.dindayalaushadhi.com , which hosts its website displaying products sold under the plaintiff’s trademark and its variants along with details of its business operations. The plaintiff’s products are also available on e-commerce websites such as indiamart.com.

10.5 The plaintiff contends that the trademark “DINDAYAL”, by virtue of continuous use since 1927 and extensive commercial presence, has acquired substantial goodwill, reputation and distinctiveness in respect of ayurvedic products as well as acquired the status of well- known trademark under Section 2(z)(g) of the Trade Marks Act. It was further stated that the trademark “DINDAYAL” functions as a house- mark of the plaintiff. To demonstrate this, the plaintiff relied on the following indicia: (i) (ii) long and uninterrupted use of the mark since 1927; annual turnover and sales figures (Rs. 2,818.88 lakhs in 2017–18, Rs. 1,448.01 lakhs in 2018–19 and Rs. 1,643.63 lakhs in 2019–20, and aggregate revenues in excess of Rs. 110 crores from 2016-2021) (iii) a wide consumer base stated to exceed 80 lakh customers; (iv) extensive product range of over 500 formulations manufactured at state-of-the-art facilities in Gwalior and Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 Malanpur; (v) registrations of approx. 36 patents and trademarks across a wide range of its products (vi) regulatory certifications by government authorities to manufacture ayurvedic products (vii) substantial investments in marketing and brand-building activities (running into crores) (viii) industry recognition celebrity endorsements, including awards such as the “Captain of Industry Award 2016” and endorsements by actors Saif Ali Khan and Anupam Kher.

10.6 As per the plaintiff, in or about the year 2015, the defendants had filed application No. 2885787 to register the device mark “Dindayal Ayurveda Bhawan”, claiming prior use since 2014. The plaintiff’s trademark agent notified the Trade Marks Registry by letters dated

11.08.2015 and 04.12.2015, informing about its prior registered similar marks in Class 5. On 13.07.2016, the Examiner had objected to the defendants’ application based on the plaintiff’s prior registration for the trademark containing the mark “DINDAYAL”. Subsequently, the mark was published on 21.08.2017 and thereafter, the plaintiff filed notice of opposition on 17.11.2017. It was further stated that the defendants operate a website under the domain name www.dindayalayurved.com registered in 2018.

10.7 In 2019, defendants’ products under the impugned marks and thereafter, a legal the plaintiff’s representatives first noticed notice sent on 05.10.2019, which went unanswered. Further, market Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 inquiries suggested that the defendants had stopped using the mark and as such no action was taken by the plaintiff during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Subsequently, in August 2021, a distributor informed the plaintiff that the defendants have started selling products under the impugned marks in Delhi NCR, Punjab, Haryana and other regions. Upon inquiry, the plaintiff found goods bearing the impugned marks and received reports of supplies without invoices as well as rumours implying an association between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ adoption of the impugned marks containing the trademark “DINDAYAL” was wholly unexplained and intended to ride on the plaintiff’s claimed long-established goodwill.

10.8 The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants have dealers and distributors in Delhi and other regions, offering ayurvedic products under the impugned marks. The plaintiff contended that such use is likely to confuse the public into believing these goods having been originated from the plaintiff. The defendants' adoption of the mark is claimed to be mala fide and dishonest, intending to exploit the plaintiff's goodwill. In view of the above, the plaintiff further alleged that they have suffered, and is likely to continue to suffer, incalculable loss to its goodwill and reputation as a result of the defendants’ acts of infringement and passing off.

11. WRITTEN STATEMENT

11.1 In the written statement, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had referred “DINDAYAL” as a registered trademark and that Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 this had been noted in the order dated 17.01.2022, whereas no such registration existed for the name “DINDAYAL”. It was submitted that the plaintiff had filed document showing such registration and that registration No. 742631 corresponded to a different mark i.e. , and not to the standalone mark “DINDAYAL”.

11.2 The defendants asserted that the name “DINDAYAL” was actually adopted by them from the name of Defendant No. 2’s grandfather, who was a vaid 3, born in the 1910s, and relied upon his death certificate dated 01.08.1983 to substantiate the name of the Defendant No.2 grandfather’s name. They also referred to Defendant No.2’s Aadhaar Card to show his residential address described as “Gali Din Dayal Wali”. The defendants further relied upon the family practice of adopting the mark “DINDAYAL” by citing examples such as “Dindayal Gopal Krishan” and “Dindayal Ankit Kumar”. The defendants also asserted that they possess a licence to manufacture ayurvedic formulations since 2014 and that their mark “DINDAYAL” had been adopted and used, in one form or another, since the 1920s, through which they claimed to have developed an independent reputation over the years.

11.3 It was further contended that the plaintiff’s own pleadings acknowledged that the defendants’ trademark application had been published in the Trade Marks Journal on 21.08.2017 and continues to remain pending adjudication before the Trade Marks Registrar, thus, Signature Not Verified 3 a practitioner of Ayurvedic medicine Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 the present suit in respect of the same mark was untenable in law. They also submitted that the plaintiff’s company had itself been incorporated only in 1992 and that the plaintiff’s claim of manufacturing medicines for 250 years was inconsistent with the requirements of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, particularly since no manufacturing licence had been placed on record with the plaint.

11.4 The defendants further drew attention the alleged inconsistencies in the plaint. They submitted that, although the plaintiff claimed use of the name “DINDAYAL” since 1927, its earliest trademark registration for bearing trademark registration No. 742631, claimed prior use since 1980. They also stated that the plaintiff’s assertion of manufacturing more than 500 products had not been supported with particulars, and contended that the defendants’ own product range was, in fact, wider than that of the plaintiffs.

11.5 It is the case of the defendants that there is a clear distinction between the products of the plaintiff and the defendants, as was also apparent from the packaging itself. In order to demonstrate the said distinction, the defendants had provided packaging illustrations of various products, including the following non-exhaustive comparison of the plaintiff’s and defendants’ packaging: Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 Plaintiff’s products Defendants’ Products

11.6 The defendants also raised objections regarding the acts of the Local Commissioner. They asserted that the Local Commissioner, appointed pursuant to the order dated 17.01.2022 by the learned District Judge, conducted a visit to the company along with the plaintiff and its Counsel, however, the Local Commissioner was alleged to have inspected the premises belonging to the Defendant No. 2’s father instead of those identified in the said order, and also highlighted irregularities the preparation of inspection report and supurdarinama. It was further alleged that the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3(b) of the CPC, as no affidavit of service of a copy of the inspection report was supplied. The Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 defendants further contended that the filing of the inspection report was delayed and, in their view, stood completely compromised and untenable.

11.7 The defendants further pleaded delay, laches, and acquiescence, contending that the plaintiff had been aware of the defendants’ trademark existence since 2015, yet no proceedings were initiated until

2021. The plaintiffs’ knowledge of the defendants’ use of the impugned marks since 2015 is, in fact, admitted in their own plaint. This is also evident from the plaintiff’s awareness of the defendants’ trademark application No. 2885787 dated 20.01.2015 for registration of the device mark “Dindayal Ayurveda Bhawan”. Impugned Order

12. Having recorded the rival contentions of the parties, the learned District Judge proceeded on the following grounds to vacate the ex- parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in the impugned order dated 18.09.2023. (i) The defendants possessed a licence to manufacture medicines since 2014. (ii) The plaintiff was aware of the defendants’ trademark since 2015 and his objections before the Trade Marks Registry had been rejected. (iii) Although the plaintiff issued a notice in 2019, the suit was Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 filed only in 2021. (iv) The defendants were using the mark “Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan”, whereas the plaintiff was using “Dindayal Aushidhi Private Limited”. (v) The word “DINDAYAL” was considered a common name and not a standalone registered trademark of the plaintiff. (vi) The defendants had obtained a search certificate, a copyright – No Objection Certificate4, and a label approval for “Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan”.

13. RIVAL CONTENTIONS BEFORE THIS COURT

13.1 Ms. Rajeshwari, learned Counsel for the plaintiff challenged the impugned order dated 18.09.2023, contending that the learned District Judge had committed grave errors in dismissing the application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Learned Counsel submitted that the mark/device/label in dispute is the defendants’ use of the mark “Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan” as it prominently reproduces the mark “DINDAYAL” which is the essential, dominant, and source-identifying feature of the plaintiff’s registered device marks.

13.2 It was submitted that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Signature Not Verified 4 “NOC”, hereinafter Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 the multiple device marks containing the prominent feature “DINDAYAL” in its registered composite marks , , primarily in Class 5. These registrations include device labels where the word “DINDAYAL” forms the eye-catching and source-indicating element of the overall mark.

13.3 The learned Counsel submitted that the plaintiff and its predecessors have been using the mark “DINDAYAL” continuously and uninterruptedly since 1927, derived from the name of their great- great-grandfather, Late Shri Dindayal Chhaparwala, a renowned Ayurvedic Vaid honoured as “Raj Vaidya”.

13.4 It was further submitted that the business was originally carried on as a proprietorship under M/s Dindayal Aushadhayalya from 1927 to 1992, after which M/s Dindayal Aushadhalaya Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated, and in 2008 it was converted into a public limited company under the name M/s Dindayal Industries Ltd.

13.5 It was submitted that defendants manufacture identical goods to those of the plaintiff and are doing so under the impugned marks/device/labels.

13.6 Learned Counsel specifically identified the defendants’ mark/device/label in dispute, including the impugned device mark “Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan” which prominently reproduces the Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 mark “DINDAYAL”, claim to be the essential, dominant, and source- identifying feature of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.

13.7 It was further contended that the defendants, by using the mark “DINDAYAL” in their impugned marks, are passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff, thereby engaging in deceptive practices and misleading stockists by falsely representing that the plaintiff has changed its packaging. It was also alleged that the defendants had made disparaging remarks regarding the plaintiff’s products.

13.8 The learned Counsel argued that the defendants had merely obtained a NOC from the Trade Marks Registry for the limited purpose of a copyright proceeding, yet the learned District Judge erroneously assumed in paragraph 17 of the impugned order that the said NOC constituted approval of the defendants’ trademark and, on that basis, concluded that the parties’ marks were not deceptively similar and that no case of passing off was made out.

13.9 It was further contended that, in arriving at its conclusion, the learned District Judge had totally ignored the plaintiff’s long-standing and continuous use of the mark “DINDAYAL”, as evidenced inter alia its brochures referring to plaintiff’s history and its first manufacturing unit dating back to 1927, advertisements issued as early as 1933, historic licences, trademark certificates, invoices and Chartered Accountant5 certified turnover records from 2009 to 2012 and 2017 to 2020. Signature Not Verified 5 “CA”, hereinafter Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024

13.10 Learned Counsel also alleged mala fide conduct on the part of the defendants. It was substantiated by pointing out that despite the direction in the order dated 17.01.2022 requiring the defendants to file an affidavit disclosing their sales under the marks “DINDAYAL” / “DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN” along with their written statement, no such disclosure was ever made, rendering the defendants liable for contempt. Further, it was substantiated with the fact that the defendants made allegations against the Local Commissioner’s character and competence who was duly appointed vide learned District Judge order dated 17.01.2022.

13.11 Learned Counsel also alleged that the defendants were operating their business illegally without issuing invoices and also drew attention to the Local Commissioner’s report, which records that, even in the presence of the police, the defendants had failed to produce their accounts or cash records, while claiming that defendants’ business was conducted solely in cash.

13.12 It was further contended that, despite the ex-parte ad interim injunction, the defendants had continued to use the impugned marks by operating their website, selling products both online and offline, and participating in business fairs.

13.13 In support of their assertions, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments: M/s South India Beverages v. General Mills Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAJEEV DHANKHAR Signing Date:22.12.2025 17:48:03 FAO (COMM) 15/2024 Marketing Inc6, M/s Power Control Appliances & Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.7, Laxmikant v. Patel Vs Chetanbhai Shah & Anr.8, Goenka Institute of Education & Research v. Anjani Kumar Goenka & Anr.9, and Montari Overseas Ltd. v. Montari Industries Ltd 10.

13.14 Per contra, Mr. Suhail Sehgal, learned Counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff had incorrectly asserted throughout the suit that it possessed a registered trademark in the standalone word “DINDAYAL” whereas a bare perusal of the registered trademarks relied upon would show that no such standalone mark exists in the plaintiff’s favour and that the registrations pertain only to composite trademarks containing the mark “DINDAYAL”.

13.15 It was submitted that an ex parte order dated 17.01.2022 was also passed under a mistaken premise, as it referred to registration nos. 742630, 742631, 742632 and 742633, even though the plaintiff had not filed the corresponding registration certificates along with the suit. Thus, it was contended that an ex parte interim order was issued without the Court having examined the actual registered marks.

13.16 The learned Counsel further contended that the plaintiff could have applied for registration of any part of its composite trademark under Sections 15 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act but had chosen not to do so and therefore, at this stage could not now claim exclusivity over