Delhi High Court - Orders
Triology Solutions Private Limited vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited, & ... on 22 December, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 709/2022 AND I.A. 32255/2025
TRIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Rima Majumdar, Mr. Kashish Vij,
Mr. Vikrant Rana and Ms. Lucy Rana,
Advs.
versus
FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED, & ORS.
.....Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 22.12.2025 I.A. 32255/2025
1. This is an application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'] filed by the Plaintiff seeking substitution of Godrej Consumer Products Limited as the Plaintiff in this suit.
2. Ms. Rima Majumdar, learned counsel for the Plaintiff state that during the pendency of the present suit, a Business Transfer Agreement dated 31.10.2025 ['the Agreement'] has been executed between the Plaintiff and Godrej Consumer Products Limited, by virtue of which Godrej Consumer Products Limited has acquired the business of men's grooming and skin care products under the trademark 'MUUCHSTAC' from the Plaintiff-Triology Solutions Private Limited.
2.1. She states that pursuant to the said Agreement, the Plaintiff has also CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 1 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 executed a Deed of Assignment dated 10.11.2025, by way of which Plaintiff's 'MUUCHSTAC' trademarks have been duly assigned and transferred to Godrej Consumer Products Limited.
2.2. She states that Godrej Consumer Products Limited has also filed a request with the Trademarks Registry seeking recording of its entry as the subsequent proprietor of 'MUUCHSTAC' trademarks including the Scheduled Trademarks.
2.3. She states that an amended memo of parties has also filed along with this application.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.
4. The Plaintiff has placed on record the Assignment Deed dated 10.11.2025 executed between the Plaintiff and Godrej Consumer Products Limited, along with affidavits of both the parties affirming the said Assignment Deed.
5. In view of the assertions made in the application and the documents placed on record, this Court deems it fit to substitute Godrej Consumer Products Limited as the Plaintiff in the present suit.
6. The Amended Memo of parties, filed along with this application is taken on record.
7. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands allowed. CS(COMM) 709/2022
8. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction for infringement of the Plaintiff's trademark and copyright, passing off action, delivery up, damages and/or rendition of accounts.
CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 2 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 Factual Matrix
9. The relevant facts, as stated in the pleadings are as under: -
9.1. The present suit arises out of the fraudulent and illegal acts of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have unlawfully latched on to Plaintiff's product listings on Flipkart to falsely projected themselves as one of the 'more sellers' of Plaintiff's products that are offered under the Plaintiff's trademarks ' ' and 'MUUCHSTAC'.
9.2. The Plaintiff-Triology Solutions Private Limited, is a company incorporated in India in 2017. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the marks 'MUUCHSTAC', and its formative marks [hereinafter referred as the 'MUUCHSTAC marks'] in India since 03.05.2017, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph no. '21' of the plaint. 9.3. The Plaintiff's goods under the 'MUUCHSTAC' marks comprise medicated and non-medicated cosmetic products, including hair growth oils, facewash, creams etc. coming under Class 5 of the NICE Classification. It is stated that the Plaintiff's application for the mark 'MUUCHSTAC' in Class 3 [for non-medicated cosmetic products], bearing application no. 3919768, was registered on 09.03.2023 during the pendency of the present proceedings. 9.4. It is stated that by way of Business Transfer Agreement dated 31.10.2025 and the Assignment Deed dated 10.11.2025, the Plaintiff's 'MUUCHSTAC' trademarks have been duly assigned and transferred in favour of Godrej Consumer Products Limited.CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 3 of 11
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 9.5. The Plaintiff is also the owner of the copyright subsisting in: (i) the original artistic work comprising in its product labels, and (ii) the display images/photographs of its products as used and published on various e- commerce platforms. Hence, as per Section 17(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 the Plaintiff is the first owner of copyright in the said photographs/pictures and designs of Plaintiff's goods.
9.6. It is stated that in a short span of time, the Plaintiff's 'MUUCHSTAC' branded products gained popularity amongst consumers on all major online retail platforms being www.amazon.in, www.meesho.com, www.myntra.com, www.nykaa.com, and www.flipkart.com [i.e., Defendant No. 1/ Flipkart herein].
9.7. It is stated that on Defendant No. 1's platform itself, the Plaintiff's products have received excellent consumer feedback, with reviews from approximately 1,50,000 consumers and an overall rating of 4.6 out of 5.0. The details of the Plaintiff's sales turnover associated with Plaintiff's trademarks are provided at paragraph no. '15' of the plaint.
9.8. The Plaintiff is the owner of the domain name www.Muuchstac.com, which is valid and subsisting as on date. The Plaintiff also sells its products from its own website, where the mark 'MUUCHSTAC' and copyright images and other artistic work showcasing Plaintiff's goods are clearly visible to the public on the said website.
9.9. The Plaintiff also has considerable presence and popularity on the social networking websites such as www.facebook.com, www.instagram.com, and www.youtube.com, where the products of the Plaintiff are showcased through pictures, posts, videos and other creative content.
CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 4 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 9.10. It is stated that the Plaintiff's goods sold under 'MUUCHSTAC' trademarks have already built up a significant reputation and immense goodwill in the eyes of the consumers for medicated and non-medicated cosmetic products including hair growth oils, facewash, creams. Knowledge about Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 9.11. In April 2022, the Plaintiff discovered that various unknown persons [arrayed as Defendant No. 3/John Doe herein], and Defendant No. 2, were selling counterfeit products of inferior quality under the Plaintiff's 'MUUCHSTAC' marks on the website of Defendant No.1 at much cheaper rates.
9.12. It is stated that these third-party identities were displayed and portrayed as 'more sellers' of the Plaintiff's goods on the website of Defendant No. 1, which in turn were interfering with Plaintiff's genuine product listings. It is stated that these entities have no license, authorization, or permit from the Plaintiff to manufacture, list, or sell the Plaintiff's products. 9.13. It is stated that the Plaintiff started receiving consumer complaints from its consumers regarding the quality, smell and packing of certain 'MUUCHSTAC' branded products and upon investigation, the Plaintiff ascertained that such complaints pertain to the counterfeit products sold by the unlawful and dishonest entities [including Defendant No. 2], which are listed by Defendant No. 2 as 'more sellers' for 'MUUCHSTAC' products. 9.14. It is contended that on account of the aforesaid illegal activity of the dishonest parties portraying themselves as 'more sellers' of Plaintiff's goods, the Plaintiff loses not just business but suffers infringement of its proprietary rights over its 'MUUCHSTAC' trademarks and copyrights over its intellectually created designs for the packaging.
CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 5 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 9.15. Aggrieved by the unauthorized and illegal activities of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit.
Submission on behalf of the Plaintiff
10. Ms. Rima Majumdar, learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the written submissions dated 17.12.2025 have been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff.
10.1. She states that despite Defendant No. 2 having been served, have chosen to willfully stay away from the present proceedings. This deliberate avoidance of participation demonstrates a clear disregard for the legal process and the rights of the Plaintiff.
10.2. She states that since the Defendant No. 2 has not filed its written statement, the contents of the plaint are deemed to be admitted as not being denied by the said Defendant.
10.3. She states that the question which needs to be decided is solely based on the documentary evidence, which is already on record and therefore, the present suit is liable to be decided against Defendant No. 2 by way of summary judgment.
10.4. She states on instructions that the Plaintiff is only praying for the relief of permanent injunction qua Defendant No. 2 in terms of prayer clause mentioned at paragraph no. 74(e) and (f) of the plaint. 10.5. She states on instructions that plaintiff is not pressing the remaining reliefs in the plaint including the relief of rendition of account and damages against Defendant No. 2.
10.6. She submits that suit has already been decreed qua Defendant No. 1 vide order dated 13.08.2025.
10.7. She states that since the Plaintiff has not been able to gather any CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 information and details about the unknown infringing individuals/entities, who have been arrayed as Defendant No. 3/John Doe herein, the Plaintiff is no more seeking any relief qua the said Defendant.
10.8. She states that since Plaintiff's application [I.A. 32255/2025] has been allowed by this Court, Godrej Consumer Products Limited has been substituted as the Plaintiff in the present suit. She prays that therefore, any decree passed in the suit now may kindly be in the name of Godrej Consumer Products Limited.
Findings and Analysis
11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.
Defendant No. 112. Vide order dated 13.08.2025, the suit was decreed qua Defendant No.1 in terms of directions issued vide order dated 28.08.2023 and the suit remained pending qua Defendant No. 2.
13. The Plaintiff in compliance of the order dated 13.08.2025 has placed its written submissions dated 17.12.2025 on record.
Defendant No. 214. As recorded in the order dated 23.04.2024, passed by the learned Joint Registrar (J), Defendant No. 2 has been served by way of publication dated 12.03.2024 in the newspaper(s) - Veer Arjuna and The Statesman.
15. Since Defendant No. 2 failed to file its written statement within the statutory permissible time period; right of Defendant No. 2 to file its written statement was closed by the learned Joint Registrar (J) vide order dated 07.08.2024.
16. In the present matter, Defendant No. 2 has been served or is aware of CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 7 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 the orders passed by this Court. However, the said Defendant has neither entered appearance nor filed the written statement. In these facts and circumstances it is evident that the said Defendant has failed to file the written statement within the prescribed time period.
17. Vide order dated 31.10.2022, the predecessor Bench of this Court had directed Defendant No. 1 to takedown the links of all resellers relating to the Plaintiff's products, appearing on its website. Since, the said links have been taken down by Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 did not raise any objections to the same, it is apparent that Defendant No. 2 is aware of the present proceedings and has accepted the directions of this Court.
18. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that all the averments made in the plaint and documents filed with the plaint are deemed to admitted. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC. The said rule reads as under: -
"10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.-- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up."
19. Furthermore, Defendant No. 2's affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff is not on record. Accordingly, the documents filed by the Plaintiff are deemed to have been admitted by Defendant No. 2 as per Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
20. It would be relevant to refer to the dicta of Satya Infrastructure Ltd.
CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 8 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.1, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under: -
"4. The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are willing to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.
5. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction."
[Emphasis Supplied]
21. Given the fact that the plaint has been duly verified and is supported by the affidavit(s) of the Plaintiffs as well the Statement of Truth and in view of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the view that this suit does not merit trial. No purpose would be served if the Plaintiff is directed to lead ex-parte evidence by way of filing an affidavit of examination-in-chief. In view of the aforesaid, this Court deems it fit to opine that the present suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.
22. The averments made in the plaint and documents placed on record clearly evident that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the marks 1 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508 CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36 'MUUCHSTAC', and its formative marks [hereinafter referred as the 'MUUCHSTAC marks'].
23. Upon a perusal of the contentions raised in the pleadings and documents placed on record it is evident that Defendant No. 2 by portraying itself as 'more sellers' of the Plaintiff's product on various e-commerce websites is selling counterfeit products. The said Defendant is copying the labelling details of the Plaintiff's product sold under 'MUUCHSTAC marks'.
Since Defendant No. 2 has not been authorised and/or permitted to sell the Plaintiff's product sold under 'MUUCHSTAC marks', it is clear that the Defendant No. 2 has malafide intention to ride upon the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation in order to gain monetary benefits.
24. The acts and conduct of Defendant No. 2 have not only caused irreparable harm to the Plaintiff but are also causing revenue losses to the Plaintiff. The counterfeit products sold by Defendant No. 2 can have severe harmful effects on the skin and hair of unsuspecting consumers. These unsuspecting consumers who might be using these products believing that the same are associated with the Plaintiff.
25. Since Defendant No. 2 have failed to take any requisite steps to contest the present suit, despite having been served upon, it is evident that they have no defence to put forth on merits. Moreover, the aforesaid illegal acts of the Defendant No. 2 constitutes a clear violation of the statutory rights of the Plaintiff in relation to its product sold under 'MUUCHSTAC marks'. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of a decree of permanent injunction.
CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 10 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36
26. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiff is entitled to reliefs of permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against Defendant No. 2 in terms of prayer clause mentioned at paragraph no. 74(e) and (f) of the plaint.
27. Ms. Rima Majumdar, learned counsel for the Plaintiff state that reliefs sought at prayer clause mentioned at paragraph no. 74(a) to 74(d) of the plaint stands satisfied in terms of the Orders dated 13.08.2025 and 28.08.2023.
28. She states that the Plaintiff is not pressing for reliefs of delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages and legal costs as mentioned at paragraph no. 74(g) to 74(j) of the plaint. The said statement is taken on record and the relief sought at prayer clause mentioned at paragraph no. 74(g) to 74(j) of the plaint are disposed of as not pressed.
29. Let the decree sheet be drawn up.
30. With the aforesaid directions, this suit along with pending applications (if any) stands disposed of.
31. All future dates stand cancelled.
32. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 22, 2025/hp/MG CS(COMM) 709/2022 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/12/2025 at 20:34:36