Delhi High Court - Orders
Micro Labs Limited vs Mahaveer Medicals & Ors on 10 October, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1086/2025 & I.A. 25144-25148/2025
MICRO LABS LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Hemant Daswani, Ms. Saumya
Bajpai and Ms. Pranjal Dhankar,
Advs.
versus
MAHAVEER MEDICALS & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 10.10.2025 I.A. 25146/2025 (seeking exemption from pre- litigation mediation)
1. This application has been filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ['CPC'], seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.
2. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, exemption from the requirement of pre- institution mediation is granted to the plaintiff.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 25147/2025 (seeking exemption from service to defendants)
4. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of CPC, on behalf of the plaintiff seeking exemption from service to the defendants.
1(2024) 5 SCC 815 CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 1 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08
5. 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 exemption from effecting service upon the defendants at this stage is granted.
6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 25148/2025(seeking extension to file the court fees)
7. This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Section 149 CPC seeking extension of time to file the court fee.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the court fee has been purchased, and the court fees certificate will be deposited with the registry within two (2) days.
9. In the aforenoted facts, time for filing the Court fees certificate is extended by one (1) week and the application is disposed of. CS(COMM) 1086/2025
10. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction for infringement of trade trademark, passing off, delivery of goods, rendition of accounts, and other ancillary reliefs.
11. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
12. Summons be issued to defendants by all permissible modes on filing of the process fee. An affidavit of service(s) be filed within two (2) weeks.
13. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
14. The plaintiff is at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty (30) CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 2 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication(s) shall be accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by defendants, failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record.
15. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
16. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
17. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 27.11.2025.
18. List before Court on 30.03.2026.
I.A. 25144/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2)
19. The present application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking an ad-interim injunction against the defendants restraining them from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark.
20. Learned counsel for the plaintiff sets up the plaintiff's case as under:
20.1 The Plaintiff, Micro Labs Limited, is a leading pharmaceutical company established in 1973. Its flagship brands, including the widely prescribed "DOLO" range of paracetamol formulations, ELDOPER, AMLONG, TENEPRIDE, and several others, enjoy a dominant presence in the pharmaceutical market.
20.2 Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the trade mark TOLPA-D under application number 2077347 dated 29.10.2010 in Class 5, which was coined and adopted by the plaintiff in November 2005. It is this product and the trademark which is the subject matter of the suit. 20.3 The plaintiff's pharmaceutical product TOLPA-D contains the active pharmaceutical ingredients such as Diclofenac Sodium IP 50Mg + CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 3 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 Serratiopeptidase IP 10Mg (Schedule-H drugs), which are used to reduce pain and inflammation in conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and osteoarthritis. It is also used to relieve muscle pain, back pain, toothache, or pain in the ear and throat.
20.4 The cumulative sales figure for the products sold under the trademark TOLPA-D from the year 2006 till 18th September 2025 is 82,07,67,591/-, as mentioned in Document no. 8 filed along with the plaint. 20.5 It is the case of the plaintiff that on 17.07.2025, the plaintiff received information that defendant No. 1, who has a pharmacy shop in Jaipur, is selling goods under the trademark TELPA-D, which has identical pharmaceutical composition.
Upon further enquiry it was learnt that defendant no. 1 is a chemist and is not just selling goods under the impugned trade mark in its own pharmacy, but is also supplying goods under the impugned trade mark to various chemists/pharmacies across the country, including the state of Delhi as confirmed through the WhatsApp message communication on number 9414415905 which belongs to defendant no. 1 which is annexed as Document 10 filed along with the plaint. The plaintiff relies upon the judgment of this Court in 'Bristol Myers Squibb Company and Anr. v. V.C. Bhutada & Ors.'2 for invoking the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 20.6 Plaintiff has learnt that the infringing goods under the impugned mark are manufactured by defendant no. 2 and then marketed by defendant no. 3 through its dealers/distributors/agents/stockists/chemists, such as defendant no. 1.
20.7 It is stated that defendant no. 3 has also filed a trademark application CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 4 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 for the impugned mark under application number 6877514 dated 25.02.2025, claiming use since 10.04.2024, which has been opposed by the Plaintiff and is pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks.
21. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff's product TOLPA-D is a Schedule H drug, which, by law, cannot be advertised and are available only through a doctor's prescription. He states that the defendants are taking undue advantage of this restriction, as their infringing goods under the impugned mark TELPA-D also contain the same pharmaceutical composition, bearing a deceptively similar name. As a result, there is a significant likelihood that a prescription intended for TOLPA-D may be misread or misinterpreted by chemists as TELPA-D, leading to confusion amongst both consumers and medical professionals, and causing financial loss to the plaintiff.
21.1. He emphasized on the fact that a single strip of the plaintiff's goods (10 tablets) under the trade mark TOLPA-D is priced at Rs. 167/-, whereas the defendants' product under the impugned trade mark TELPA-D is also priced at Rs. 167/-; thereby misleading the consumer, chemist and the medical doctors.
21.2. Also, the defendant to make inroads into the market, is offering a pack containing multiple strips at Rs. 105/- per strip, thereby creating a financial inducement for the chemists to substitute the defendant's medicine in place of the plaintiff's TOLPA-D at the point of the sale to the consumer.
22. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
23. The plaintiff has handed over the strips of the products in question.
22013 SCC OnLine Del 4129 [paragraph nos. 26 and 28] CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 5 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 The images are set out hereunder:
Plaintiff's product Defendant's product
24. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'TOLPA-D' and has placed on record documents evidencing the use of the said trademark since 2005.
The defendants' adoption of the impugned mark 'TELPA-D', being in the same business of pharmaceuticals, selling the medicine with the same pharmaceutical composition as that of the plaintiff, is prima facie not bona fide. By merely putting the letter 'E' in place of 'O' to arrive at the defendants' marks 'TELPA-D' fails to distinguish the defendants' impugned mark from the plaintiff's 'TOLPA-D'. It is also seen that the manner in which the impugned mark 'TELPA-D' is imprinted on the product is very similar to the plaintiff's mark. The font and styling of the both the marks are CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 6 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 indistinguisahble.
25. The rival marks 'TOLPA-D' vs 'TELPA-D' in question are deceptively similar. As noted above, the drug composition of the plaintiff's product and the defendants' product is the same. This Court is satisfied that due to the deceptively similar marks and identical goods, there shall be confusion and deception in the minds of the consumers and chemists since both the marks are deceptively similar to each other.
26. The Court has also taken into consideration the fact that there exists a substantial difference in the wholesale price between the plaintiff's product and the defendant's competing product. This price disparity, in the Court's view, is a relevant factor that may reasonably induce a chemist or retail pharmacist to substitute the defendant's product in place of the plaintiff's while selling the product to the consumer, thereby potentially affecting the plaintiff's commercial interests.
27. The drugs in question are a Schedule H drug and the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd3, at paragraph nos. 22, 25 and 27 has observed that in the case of drugs, the test of deceptive similarity has to be applied strictly so as to avoid confusion to the consumer.
28. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in its favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. As it is a pharmaceutical product, the plaintiff and the general public are likely to suffer grave irreparable harm in case an ex parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.
CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 7 of 12This 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08
29. Accordingly, until the next date of hearing, the Defendants 1 to 3, either by themselves or through their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, dealers, distributors, stockiest, agents, associates, employees, servants, and/or assigns and all others acting on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the impugned mark TELPA-D or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff/ Applicant's registered trade mark TOLPA-D, amounting to infringement and passing off.
30. Upon steps being taken, issue notice to the defendants through all modes. Reply to be filed within a period of four (4) weeks from the receipt of notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four (4) weeks thereafter.
31. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize the infringing product, the very purpose of the grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction would be defeated if the Defendants are 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.
32. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 27.11.2025.
33. List before Court on 30.03.2026.
I.A. 25145/2025 (seeking appointment of Local Commissioner)
34. This is an application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC, for the appointment of the Local Commissioners.
3(2001) 5 SCC 73 CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 8 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08
35. 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 four (4) Local Commissioners, the appointment is confined thereto:
S.No Addresses Particulars
1. Mahaveer Medicals located at Shop No. Ms. Shambhavi Kala, Advocate
4, Deewan Ji Ki E. No. D/5871/2020
Nasiya, Opp. SMS Hospital, Jaipur - M. No. 9818668876
302004
2. Nexline Pharma located at Plot No 37B, Ms. Anshika Sharma, Advocate
Varun Colony E. No. D/6817/2022
Golyawas, N. S. Road, Jaipur- 302 020, M. No. 9811812484
Rajasthan
3. Nexline Phanna located at SCO 83, Top Mr. Milind Jain, Advocate
Floor, Above E. No. D/2858/2018
MD Super Market Sector 12 Panchkula- M. No. 9999700647
134 112 [email protected]
4. J.M. Laboratories located at Vill. Bhanat, Ms. Aditi Sabharwal, Advocate
P.O. E. No. D/3986/2018
Ghatti, Subathu Road, Solan, Himachal M. No. 7702776291
Pradesh [email protected]
36. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under: -
i. The Local Commissioners shall visit the premises of the Defendants as mentioned above, to inspect and seize the infringing products of the Defendants bearing the registered trademark of the Plaintiffs. ii. The Local Commissioners are permitted to seize the infringing products bearing the impugned mark at the above premises and if knowledge is acquired of any other premises where the products could be stored, the Local Commissioners are free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well. iii. The Local Commissioners shall also inspect and seize any products/materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 9 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dyes or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked infringing products bearing the impugned mark or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the infringing products bearing the impugned mark can take place. iv. The Local Commissioners shall also obtain the details as to since when infringing products bearing the impugned mark are being used by the Defendants and obtain copies of the accounts, if the same is found to be sold in market.
v. The Local Commissioners 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 infringing products, if any. The Defendants shall cooperate and give passwords to the computers and the files containing the accounts, if the same is stored on the computer or a specific software. vi. After preparation of the inventory, the infringing products bearing the impugned mark, in fully manufactured or unfinished condition, including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, brochures, banners, cartons and other material bearing the impugned mark or the marks, which are similar to the Plaintiff's trademark, shall be released to the Defendants on Superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.
vii. Upon being requested, the concerned jurisdictional police authorities, CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 10 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08 the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and/or the Station House Officer ('SHO'), shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the commissions, as per this order.
viii. The Local Commissioners are also permitted to break open the locks, with the help of the local police, if access to the premises, is denied to the Commissioners.
ix. The Local Commissioners are permitted to take photographs and videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate. Two (2) representatives of the Plaintiffs, which may include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the Local Commissioner.
x. The Local Commissioners, while executing the commission, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendants, except for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall be executed in a peaceful manner. xi. On such further seizure of infringing products, the Defendants or each one of them in respect of whom the seizure has been effected, shall be served with a complete set of Court documents forthwith.
37. The order passed today shall not be uploaded for a period of two (2) weeks to enable the execution of the commissions.
38. The Local Commissions shall be executed within two (2) weeks. The report of the Local Commissioners shall be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.
39. The fee of the local commissioners is fixed at Rs 2,50,000/- each, excluding the out-of-pocket expenses, travel expenses, accommodation etc., which is to be borne by the plaintiffs.
CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 11 of 12This 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08
40. In terms of the foregoing, the present application stands disposed of.
41. 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 the execution of the Commission.
42. The learned 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 learned Local Commissioner at the time of the execution of the Commission. In addition, copy of the complete paper book shall be served by the Local Commissioners upon the Defendants at the time of execution of commissions.
43. Copy of this order to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 10, 2025/msh/AJ CS(COMM) 1086/2025 Page 12 of 12 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 31/10/2025 at 21:59:08