Delhi High Court - Orders
Dabur India Limited vs Marico Limited & Anr on 20 August, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~8, 10 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024, I.A. 38946/2024, I.A. 41769/2024
& I.A. 48366/2024
DABUR INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kripa Pandit and Mr. Christopher
Thomas, Advs.
versus
MARICO LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Ms. Kriti Rathi
and Ms. Radhika Arora, Advs. for R-
1
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC along with
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, GP for R-2/UOI
10.
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 173/2024, I.A. 38951/2024, I.A. 41767/2024
& I.A. 49617/2024
DABUR INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kripa Pandit and Mr. Christopher
Thomas, Advs.
versus
MARICO LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Ms. Kriti Rathi
and Ms. Radhika Arora, Advs. for R-
1
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC along with
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, GP for R-2/UOI
11.
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 174/2024, I.A. 38956/2024, I.A. 41768/2024
& I.A. 49616/2024
DABUR INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kripa Pandit and Mr. Christopher
Thomas, Advs.
versus
MARICO LIMITED & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Ms. Kriti Rathi
and Ms. Radhika Arora, Advs. for R-
1
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC along with
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, GP for R-2/UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 20.08.2025 I.A. 41769/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 I.A. 41767/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 173/2024 I.A. 41768/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 174/2024
1. These applications have been filed by the Petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], seeking amendment of the respective cancellation petitions.
2. Learned counsels for the parties submit that the facts arising for consideration in these applications are identical. The parties have addressed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 Page 2 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 their arguments with reference to the facts in I.A. 41769/2024. Accordingly, a common order is being passed in all these applications, with reference to the facts as set out in I.A. 41769/2024.
3. I.A. 41769/2024 is an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], has been filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment of the cancellation petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner seeks to amend paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18. She states that the amended petition has been annexed with this application.
4.1. She states that the amendment has been necessitated due to an inadvertent error on the part of the counsel, who was drafting the petition. 4.2. She states that the pleas raised in paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original petition are inconsistent with the stand taken by the Petitioner at paragraph nos. 14, 16 and 17 of the original petition. 4.3. She states that the Petitioner's stand in the present proceeding is that the Petitioner's mark is not similar to the Respondent's mark. She states that however inadvertently, the Petitioner at paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original petition has stated that the Petitioner's mark is 'deceptively similar' to the Respondent's mark.
4.4. She states that the disputes between the parties arose after the Respondent No. 1 filed a commercial suit being CS(COMM) 303/2023 titled Marico Limited v. Dabur India Limited against the Petitioner herein. She states that in the said suit proceedings, the Petitioner herein appeared before the Court on the first date of hearing i.e., 11.05.2023 and asserted that the Petitioner's mark is not similar to the Respondent No. 1's mark. She states that Petitioner has also filed its written statement and a reply to the C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 injunction application [filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC] in the said commercial suit on 10.07.2023. She stated that in the said pleadings, the Petitioner has asserted that the Petitioner's mark is not similar to the Respondent No. 1's mark.
4.5. She states that the present petition [seeking cancellation of the Respondent No. 1's impugned trademark bearing registration no. 5879763 under Class 03], was filed by the Petitioner in August, 2024. 4.6. She states that notice was issued in these petitions on 13.09.2024. She states that even before Respondents could file their replies to these petitions; Petitioner realized that inadvertently, while drafting the present petitions, errors have crept in at paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original petitions. She states that accordingly, the captioned applications were filed by the Petitioner in October, 2024 for correcting the said errors. 4.7. She states that by way of this amendment, the Petitioner is not seeking to change its stand or cause of action for filing the present petitions. She states that the amendment seeks to bring consistency in the pleadings in the petition and bring it in conformity with the written statement filed in CS(COMM) 303/2023.
4.8. She relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar1 to contend that the error committed by the lawyer, who drafted this petition, should be permitted to be rectified, as the rectification sought would not prejudice the Respondent. 4.9. She has handed over a written note, enlisting the pleas taken by the Petitioner in its written statement and its reply to the injunction application in CS(COMM) 303/2023, which contain the pleas now sought to be C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 Page 4 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 incorporated in the captioned petition.
5. In response, Mr. C.M. Lall, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 states that the averments made at unamended paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original petitions constitute an admission on behalf of the Petitioner. He states that it is the stand of the Respondent that the marks are deceptively similar. He states that the Petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw these admissions, as these pleas have created vested rights in favour of the Respondent to succeed in its claims against the Petitioner. He refers to Section 11 of Trademarks Act, 1999. He relies upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and Others2 and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another3 to contend that admissions cannot be permitted to be withdrawn by amendment.
6. He states that the plea of error committed by the lawyer who drafted the petitions cannot be accepted. He states that unamended paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 comprise pleas of facts and law. He states that the petition is supported by the affidavit of the Petitioner's representative, who has affirmed the said contents and therefore, the Petitioners are bound by the same.
7. He, however, fairly admits that the Petitioner herein in the written statement and the reply to injunction application filed in the commercial suit i.e., CS(COMM) 303/2023 has categorically taken a stand that the two marks are dissimilar; and the pleas in the amendment would be consistent with the said stand. He also admits that the said pleading is of July, 2023 and 1 (1990) 1 SCC 166 [Paragraph nos. 4 and 6] 2 (1998) 1 SCC 278 [Paragraph nos. 5 to 7] C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 Page 5 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 pre-dates the present petition.
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Commercial Suit Proceedings between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 herein
9. It is a matter of record that the Respondent No. 1 has filed a commercial suit i.e., CS(COMM) 303/2023 titled Marico Limited v. Dabur India Limited against the Petitioner herein, which was listed before this Court on 11.05.2023 and on the said date, the Petitioner herein entered appearance and made a categorical assertion that the marks of the parties are dissimilar. The relevant portion of the order reads as under: -
"17. Plaintiffs have filed the instant suit, inter alia, alleging infringement and passing-off of their hair oil products including trade dress, bearing the mark 'REDKING', which was first launched in Bangladesh in May 2021. Mr. Lall states that Defendants have not yet launched the infringing products bearing the mark 'COOL KING' in the Indian market, however, images shown in the pleadings were taken at an event/ exhibition wherein Defendant revealed the product. Defendant has a clear intent to adopt deceptively similar packaging and trade dress as that of Plaintiffs, passing off their goods as that of Plaintiffs. In order to establish Plaintiff No. 1's (Marico Ltd.) trademark rights over 'REDKING' products - Mr. Lall argues that the reputation and cachet of Plaintiff No. 2 (Marico Bangladesh Ltd.), subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 1, has spilled over to India, which is evident from: (i) advertisements on TV channels in Bangladesh, which have also been viewed by consumers in India; (ii) annual report of Plaintiff No. 1 depicting 'REDKING' products; (iii) awards and accolades received by Plaintiffs' 'REDKING' products in India. Further, Mr. Lall draws reference to the pleadings wherein a comparison chart of the two products is shown to highlight the similarities between the packaging / trade dress of the two competing products.
18. Ms. Pandit, on the other hand, states that Defendant has already launched its 'COOL KING' products on 06th May, 2023. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Counsel for Defendant and Mr. Bakhru argue that 3 (2022) 16 SCC 1 [Paragraph no. 71] C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 deceptively similarity and confusion is entirely absent by pointing out several differences between the two products including the design/ shape of the bottles, colour of caps, overall packaging and the prominent use of Defendant's house marks. Mr. Nayar argues Plaintiffs do not have any trademark/ copyright registrations qua the label/ trade dress/ artwork in their product and ad-interim injunction is wholly unwarranted as Plaintiffs' products have not been launched in India till date. To the above assertion, Mr. Lall states that the products will be launched in India in June 2023."
(Emphasis Supplied) 9.1. The Petitioner herein, thereafter filed its written statement on 10.07.2023 in the said commercial suit, wherein the Petitioner took a categorical stand that Petitioner's/defendants' trademark/trade-dress is dissimilar to Respondent No. 1's/plaintiff's trademark/trade-dress. Extensive pleadings to this effect were set out in the written statement at paragraph nos. 17, 18, 19 of the preliminary objections and at paragraph nos. 20, 23, 26, 32 and 37 of the para-wise reply.
9.2. Similarly, the Petitioner filed its reply to the injunction application on 10.07.2023 and reiterated the defence of dissimilarity at paragraph nos. 16, and 17 of the preliminary objections and in para-wise reply at paragraph nos. 20, 23, 26, 32 and 37.
9.3. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff amended its plaint and in response the Petitioner/defendant filed its amended written statement on 14.10.2024, wherein the Petitioner/defendant reiterated its submission Petitioner's/defendants' trademark/trade-dress is dissimilar to Respondent No. 1's/plaintiff's trademark/trade-dress.
10. The Respondent No. 1 fairly concedes to the aforesaid factual position.
Proceedings in the present matter C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20
11. The present cancellation petition was filed subsequently in August, 2024 and the captioned application seeking amendment of the said petition has admittedly been filed at the earliest in October 2024; which is even prior to the filing of the reply by the Respondent, in this petition. This makes it evident that the Petitioner upon realizing the inconsistency in the averments pleaded in the original petition as well as the commercial suit, promptly move the captioned application seeking corrections of such errors.
The reply of the Respondent No. 1 is still not on record since it was filed belatedly.
12. In view of the stand of the Petitioner, recorded in order dated 11.05.2023 and its stand pleaded in the written statement to the plaint and the reply to the injunction application in CS(COMM) 303/2023, this Court is satisfied that the plea of deceptive similarity in the trademarks of both the parties, as pleaded by the Petitioner in the unamended paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original cancellation petition (filed in August, 2024) is inconsistent with the stand already affirmed on oath in the written statement filed in CS(COMM) 303/2023, as filed in July, 2023.
The Petitioner, therefore, by amending the paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original cancellation petition is infact bringing the pleadings in conformity with its written statement filed in CS(COMM) 303/2023.
13. Since, the amendment application has been filed at the earliest in October, 2024, even prior to the Respondent No. 1's reply being filed on record, this Court is satisfied that no prejudice has been caused to the Respondent No. 1.
14. Having perused the pleadings of the written statement and the order dated 11.05.2023 in CS(COMM) 303/2023, this Court is not persuaded to C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 Page 8 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 held that the averments made by the Petitioner at paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original cancellation petition is an admission of the Petitioner, which has consequently vested rights under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 in favour of the Respondent No. 1.
The averments made at paragraph nos. 15, 17 and 18 of the original cancellation petitions are wholly inconsistent with the stand taken in the written statement and therefore, appear to be incongruous.
15. Moreover, the plea of the deceptive similarity at the injunction stage is to be determined by the Court's on the basis of its prima facie opinion and at trial on the basis of the evidence. The finding of the deceptive similarity is not determined solely on the basis of the stand of the parties. The Respondent would therefore, have to be satisfy the Court on the issue of deceptive similarity on its own merit.
16. Undoubtedly, the incongruous pleas made in paragraphs nos. 15, 17 and 18 in the original cancellation petition ought not to have been made as they were inconsistent with the stand taken in the written statement. And, the Petitioner's representative who has signed these pleadings and affirmed the affidavit ought to have been careful and vigilant so as to have perused the pleading line by line.
The Court can only presume that since the Petitioner's representative had already signed the written statement filed in CS(COMM) 303/2023, the said representative would have presumed that the pleadings in the cancellation petition are consistent with the said written statement; making him lax while affirming the petition. However, in these facts it does appear that the concerned lawyer, while drafting this petition has made an error since the plea raised is wholly inconsistent with the written statement.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 Page 9 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20 This Court therefore finds that it is an appropriate case for allowing the applications and permitting the amendment. The amendment sought by way of these applications would not prejudice the case of the Respondent No. 1, as it does not amount to changing of its stand. This Court is therefore of the opinion that applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar (supra), the said error should be permitted to be corrected.
17. This Court is satisfied that by permitting the amendment, no fresh cause of action is being introduced and no injustice is being caused to the Respondent No. 1.
18. In aforesaid terms, I.A. No. 41769/2024 is hereby allowed. For the reasons recorded herein I.A. No. 41767/2024 and I.A. No. 41768/2024 are also allowed.
19. The three (3) applications are allowed, subject to payment of consolidated costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two (2) weeks.
20. The respective amended petitions, enclosed with the respective captioned applications are directed to be taken on record.
21. With the aforesaid directions, these applications stand disposed of. I.A. 48366/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 I.A. 49617/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 173/2024 I.A. 49616/2024 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 174/2024
22. These are applications filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 in respective petitions under Section 151 of CPC, seeking condonation of delay of 52 days in filing reply to the Petitioner's cancellation petition.
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 Page 10 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20
23. For the reasons stated in the applications, the applications are allowed and the delay is condoned. The reply is directed to be taken on record.
24. Accordingly, these applications are disposed of. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 173/2024 C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 174/2024
25. The Respondent No. 1 will be at liberty to file its reply to the amended petition(s).
26. The Respondent No. 1 seeks and is granted six (6) weeks' time to file its reply. Rejoinder, if any, within four (4) weeks thereafter.
27. List before the Ld. Joint Registrar (J) on 03.12.2025.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
AUGUST 20, 2025/hp/AM/MG
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2024 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 25/08/2025 at 22:17:20