Delhi High Court - Orders
Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Wazahat Choudhary on 17 October, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1139/2025 & I.As. 26340-45/2025
PUREPLAY SKIN SCIENCES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Deepika and
Mr. Priyansh Kohli, Advocates
versus
MR. WAZAHAT CHOUDHARY .....Defendant
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 17.10.2025 I.A. 26345/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
1. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') [as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 ('Commercial Courts Act')], within thirty (30) days.
2. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents, will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ('DHC Rules').
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 26344/2025 (Application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act seeking exemption for instituting prelitigation mediation) CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 1 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22
5. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, read with Section 151 of the CPC.
6. Having regard to the facts of the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi1, exemption from the requirement of pre- institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 26343/2025 (for seeking discovery by interrogatories along with supporting affidavit)
8. This is an application under Order XI Rule 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking discovery by interrogatories along with a supporting affidavit.
9. Issue notice to the Defendant through all modes.
10. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of four (4) weeks.
11. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.
I.A. 26342/2025 (seeking exemption from affecting advance service to the Defendant)
12. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC, on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking exemption from advance service to the Defendant.
13. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner, the 1 (2024) 5 SCC 15.
CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 2 of 15This 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 exemption from effecting service upon the Defendant at this stage is granted.
14. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 1139/2025
15. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
16. Summons be issued to Defendant by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2) weeks.
17. The summons shall indicate that the written statement must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendant shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
18. The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30) days after filing the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
19. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
20. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
21. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 10.12.2025.
22. List before Court on 01.04.2026.
I.A. 26340/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
23. This is an application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking interim injunction against the Defendant.
CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 3 of 15This 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22
24. Mr. Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, sets up the Plaintiff's case as under:
24.1. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of marketing and selling skincare and personal care products under the popular brand name PLUM.
The Plaintiff offers its products under the following three brands:
a. PLUM- Beauty Products b. PLUM BODY LOVIN'- Bath and Body products c. PHY- Body care product range for men.
24.2. The Plaintiff, in addition to operating through various offline retail stores and outlets, also operates through its website https://plumgoodness.com/ and various e-commerce platforms such as Nykaa, Amazon, Myntra, etc. 24.3. The Plaintiff adopted the mark PLUM/ in 2013 in relation to its beauty and skincare products. The trademark PLUM was registered under TM No. 5060946, with the application dated 27.07.2021 and user claim since 17.04.2014 in Class 3; and was registered under TM No. 2596676, with the application dated 16.09.2013 in Class 3 on a proposed-to-be-used basis2.
24.4. The Plaintiff in 2018 launched another stand-alone brand
PHY/ for a range of body care products for men, and thereafter
in 2019, the Plaintiff launched a sub-brand,
2
Details of Plaintiff's PLUM registrations has been set out in paragraph '20' of the plaint.CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 4 of 15
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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 BODYLOVIN/ under the brand PLUM for bath and body products3.
24.5. The Plaintiff's sales revenue for the financial year 2024-2025 was Rs. 401.852 crores, and it has also incurred significant expenditure on the promotion of its products, amounting to Rs. 139.235 crores. Knowledge about the Defendant 24.6. The Defendant/Mr. Wazahat Choudhary trading as N.R. Enterprises, is an individual engaged in the sale of various skin care, hair care and beauty products through a retail store.
24.7. In July 2025, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant was promoting and selling the Plaintiff's products under the Plaintiff's registered trademarks PLUM, PHY, and BODYLOVIN', without any modification to the trade dress and exactly as the Plaintiff's original products, at highly discounted prices. It is stated that investigation reveals that the Defendant is selling expired goods by tampering the manufacturing date under the trademark PLUM and possibly counterfeit products under the trademark PHY.
24.8. On conducting an investigation, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant was actively promoting the Plaintiff's PLUM and BODY LOVIN products at a discounted price through his Instagram and Facebook social media. 24.9. At its retail store, the Defendant is displaying several of the Plaintiff's products alongside various third-party brands under different price sections such as Rs. 49/-, Rs. 99/-, Rs. 149/-, etc. Upon enquiry by the investigator, 3 Details of Plaintiff's PHY and BODYLOVIN registrations have been set out in paragraph '21' of the CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 5 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 the Defendant stated that he is currently only engaged in retail sales and refused to disclose the source from which he procures the said products. The Defendant is also facilitating the online sale of such counterfeit/tampered products.
24.10.Plaintiff procured PLUM products, viz. 'PLUM Onion Oil & Bhringraj Hair Growth Oil' and 'PLUM Hello Aloe Skin Loving Face Wash' are being sold at Rs. 49/- each, as well as 'PLUM Turmeric & White Clay Acne Action Face Wash' being sold at Rs. 100/-, against their original MRPs of Rs. 325/-, Rs. 275/- and Rs. 249/- respectively. No invoices were provided by the Defendant for the said purchase.
24.11.Upon inspection of the procured products sold under the trademark PLUM, it was revealed that although the products were the original products of the Plaintiff, they had been tampered with, and the manufacturing details, such as the date and batch number, had been altered. 24.12.Thereafter, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant is also promoting and offering Plaintiff's PHY range of products for sale, which are counterfeit as this range of product has been discontinued by the Plaintiff in 2023.
25. Mr. Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, states that the Plaintiff is aggrieved by the Defendant's fraudulent activities of counterfeiting and tampering with the Plaintiff's products. 25.1. He states that, in respect of the counterfeit/tampered products procured by the investigator, the Plaintiff observed the following instances of tampering carried out by the Defendant in relation to the Plaintiff's original products:
plaint.CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 6 of 15
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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 PLUM Onion Oil & Bhringraj Hair Growth Oil 25.2. The Defendant has tampered with the Plaintiffs' PLUM Onion Oil & Bhringraj Hair Growth Oil by removing the original manufacturing details on the label and fabricating false details, including batch number and the manufacturing date. As per the Plaintiffs' records, no such batch was ever manufactured, and the Plaintiffs' manufacturing agreement with MG Shahani & Co., Delhi Pvt. Ltd. had been terminated in May 2024, making it impossible for any product with a manufacturing date of March 2025 to be genuine.
PLUM Hello Aloe Skin Loving Face Wash 25.3. The Defendant has tampered with the Plaintiffs' PLUM Hello Aloe Skin Loving Face Wash by trimming the crimp of the tube, where the manufacturing date is mandatorily printed, and stamping fabricated manufacturing details on the product packaging. The Plaintiffs had discontinued manufacturing this product, with the last production date being 07.03.2024. Hence, no product could have been manufactured in February 2025, as indicated. Further, the label states "Not to be sold without carton", yet the Defendant supplied the product without any carton. PLUM Turmeric & White Clay Acne Action Face Wash 25.4. The Defendant has tampered with the Plaintiffs' PLUM Turmeric and White Clay Acne Action Face Wash by trimming the crimp of the tube and removing all mandatory information, including the batch number, manufacturing date, and MRP, all of which are required to be printed on the crimp. A comparison with the Plaintiffs' original product shows that the genuine products display batch number and manufacturing date on the front of the crimp and the MRP on the back, whereas the procured product CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 7 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 contains none of these details, clearly indicating tampering. 25.5. Pictures depicting the Defendant's tampering with PLUM counterfeit products have been set out in paragraph '35' of the plaint. PHY Products 25.6. He states that the Plaintiff also procured various counterfeit products of PHY being sold by the Defendant. This is evident from the fact that the Plaintiff ceased production of all PHY products in 2022-2023, and no production was undertaken post February 2023. An inspection of all the PHY counterfeit products revealed that the manufacturing dates of all the said products had been mentioned as February 2025 or May 2025. Pictures depicting the Defendant's tampering with PHY counterfeit products have been set out in paragraph '36' of the plaint.
Expired products 25.7. He states that most of the Plaintiff's products do not bear a fixed expiry date per se but indicate an expiry period from the date of manufacturing. Accordingly, any alteration of the manufacturing date on an already expired product would automatically extend its expiry period. 25.8. It is thus clear that the Defendant has deliberately and fraudulently altered the manufacturing details of the Plaintiff's products, and the counterfeit products therefore appear to be expired products. 25.9. He states that the Plaintiff has a mechanism whereby it calls back all the expired products from its distributors and ensures safe disposal of the same. However, it is evident that the Defendant herein has procured the expired products of the Plaintiff in a clandestine manner and is making illicit commercial gain by selling such tampered/counterfeit products at massive discounts and at the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 8 of 15This 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 25.10.He states that the Defendant's activities constitute an instrument of fraud, deliberately designed to cause confusion and deception among the public. Actual confusion is further evidenced by numerous comments on the Defendant's social media accounts, where consumers have inquired about the legitimacy of the tampered and counterfeit products being sold by the Defendant.
25.11.He further states that the Defendant has intentionally sought to create confusion and deceptively rely upon the Plaintiff's goodwill to mislead the public, while attempting to foist the responsibility of its deceptive actions upon the Plaintiff, who had no involvement in the Defendant's activities. Such adoption and use of the aforementioned marks by the Defendant, without any authority or license from the Plaintiff, constitutes clear infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark. Court's Findings
26. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.
27. Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiff, has handed over the Plaintiff's original products as well as the Defendant's tampered/counterfeit products to this Court for comparison. He has explained the modus followed by the Defendant of altering in manufacturing date on the products bearing the trademark PLUM. The explanation offered by the Plaintiff demonstrates the tampering of the manufacturing date.
He has also shown the products bearing the trademark PHY. These products bear manufacturing date of 02/2025 and 05/2025.
28. On comparison of the original products of the Plaintiff with the tampered/counterfeit products, it is prima facie evident that the Defendant CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 9 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 has fraudulently altered the relevant manufacturing details of the Plaintiff's original products.
29. The Defendant, by tampering with the products, demonstrates a deliberate attempt to impersonate the Plaintiff. The same seems like a calculated effort to deceive unsuspecting and unwary consumers into believing that the counterfeit products being sold by the Defendant are genuine products being sold by the Plaintiff.
30. This fraudulent conduct of the Defendant reflects his mala fide intent to earn quick money and misappropriate the goodwill and reputation garnered by the Plaintiff. Considering the real dangers associated with the tampered and counterfeit cosmetic products, they pose a completely unacceptable risk to the health and safety of consumers. The Defendant's act of using the Plaintiff's original expired products, bearing the Plaintiff's registered trademark, on its counterfeit goods is likely to mislead an average consumer into believing that such goods are authorised and originate from the Plaintiff.
31. In the overall conspectus, Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant. This court is satisfied that if an ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm/ injury would be caused to the Plaintiff. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, and against the Defendant.
32. Accordingly, until further orders, the Defendant, his business associates, partners, agents, employees, and anyone acting for and on his behalf are hereby restrained from manufacturing, selling, exporting, distributing, packaging, advertising, promoting, whether through offline or online means, or in any manner dealing with expired/tampered/counterfeit CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 10 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 PLUM or any other product emanating from the Plaintiff or bearing the mark PLUM/ / / formative marks or any other mark or trade dress which is identical or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's marks or trade dress in relation to the identical or any allied or cognate goods or services.
33. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize the infringing product bearing the impugned mark, the very purpose of the grant of ex parte ad interim injunction would be defeated if the Defendant is given notices contemplated in Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC prior to the execution of the commission. Hence, it is directed that the Plaintiffs shall serve notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC at the time of execution of the Local Commission, which shall not be later than two (2) weeks from today. An affidavit of compliance must be filed within two (2) weeks.
34. Upon steps being taken by the Plaintiff, issue notice to the Defendant through all modes.
35. Reply be filed within four (4) weeks from receipt of notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four (4) weeks thereafter.
36. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 10.12.2025.
37. List before Court on 01.04.2026.
I.A. 26341/2025 (for appointment of Local Commissioner)
38. This is an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 and Order XXXIX Rule 7, read with Section 151 of CPC, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner.
CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 11 of 15This 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22
39. In order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with and to preserve the evidence of infringement, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint one Local Commissioner, the appointment is confined thereto.
S.NO ADDRESSES PARTICULARS
1. M/S N.R Enterprises Ms. Sanya Kumar, Advocate
C-117/118, Shop No. 3, E. No. D-1079/2016
Near Sanjay Juice, Mangal Bazar Email:[email protected]
Market, M. No. 981833579
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092
40. The reference to counterfeit products in the following paragraphs includes references to expired as well as tampered products.
41. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under: -
i. The Local Commissioner shall visit the premises of the Defendant as mentioned above, to inspect and seize the counterfeit products.
ii. The Local Commissioner is permitted to seize counterfeit products at the above premises, and if knowledge is acquired of any other premises where the goods could be stored, the Local Commissioner is free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well.
iii. The Local Commissioner shall also inspect and seize any goods/materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dyes or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked counterfeit products or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the counterfeit CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 12 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 products can take place.
iv. The Local Commissioner shall also obtain the details as to since when counterfeit products have been used by the Defendant and obtain copies of the account, if the same is found to be sold in the market.
v. The Local Commissioner shall obtain accounts, including ledgers, stock registers, invoice books, receipt books, cash books, purchase and sale records and any other books of record or commercial transactions kept at the premises of the Defendant and take a photocopy and/or record of all such transactions that pertain to counterfeit products, if any. The Defendant shall cooperate and give passwords to the computers and the files containing the accounts, if the same are stored on the computer or a specific software.] vi. In case the Defendant contends that the counterfeit products have been purchased from a third party, the Defendant will also provide the details of the identity of the said entity/person from whom the counterfeit products are purchased.
vii. After preparation of the inventory, the counterfeit products, in fully manufactured or unfinished condition, including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, brochures, banners, signage, cartons and other material, shall be released to the Defendant on Superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.
viii. The Local Commissioner is also permitted to break open the CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 13 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22 locks, with the help of the local police, if access to the premises where the counterfeit products have been stocked/manufactured, is denied to the Commissioners.
ix. Upon being requested, the concerned, the Station House Officer ['SHO'] and/or the concerned Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction over the aforesaid jurisdiction, shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the commission, as per this order. x. The Local Commissioner is permitted to take photographs and videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate.
xi. The Local Commissioner, while executing the commission, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendant, except for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall be executed in a peaceful manner.
xii. Copy of the order and complete paper book shall be served by the Local Commissioner upon the Defendant at the time of execution of the commission.
42. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local Commissioners to the Defendant.
43. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- excluding out-of-pocket expenses, travel expenses, and accommodation expenses, etc., which are to be borne by the Plaintiffs.
44. The Local Commission shall be executed within two (2) weeks. The report of the Local Commissioner shall be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.
CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 14 of 15This 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22
45. The order passed today shall not be uploaded for a period of two (2) weeks to enable the execution of the commission.
46. This application is disposed of.
47. Either, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff or the learned Local Commissioner is directed to collect a certified copy of this order from the Registry (Dispatch Branch) before for execution of the Commission.
48. The Local Commissioner shall carry the certified copy of this Order for execution of the Commission, and a copy of the same shall be served upon the Defendant by the Local Commissioner at the time of the execution of the Commission.
49. Copy of this order to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 17, 2025/rhc/aa CS(COMM) 1139/2025 Page 15 of 15 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 07/11/2025 at 21:22:22