Delhi High Court - Orders
Upl Limited And Anr vs Royal Agro Tech And Ors on 22 December, 2025
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1386/2025
UPL LIMITED AND ANR .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Suhrita Majumdar, Mr.
Dominic Alvares, Mr. Debjyoti
Sarkar, Mr. Samik Mukhjerjee, Mr.
Sharad Besoya and Mr. Avinash
Sharma, Advocates.
versus
ROYAL AGRO TECH AND ORS .....Defendants
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 22.12.2025 I.A. No. 32274/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 32276/2025 (to mask the identities of the Parties)
3. The Plaintiffs apprehend failure of the Local Commission(s) if the identities of the Defendants are revealed and has requested masking of identities of the Parties till the filing of the report(s) of the Local Commissioner(s) in compliance with the Practice Direction No.139/Rules/DHC dated 27.05.2025.
4. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The Application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 1 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 I.A. No. 32272/2025 (Exemption from pre-institution Mediation)
6. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiffs seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("CC Act").
7. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre- institution Mediation is granted.
8. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 32275/2025 (Exemption from advance service to the Defendant)
9. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), seeking exemption from advance service to the Defendants.
10. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs, submitted that there is a real and imminent likelihood that the Defendants may take immediate steps to dispose of, conceal or suppress its infringing business operations and digital footprints bearing the deceptively similar Trade Mark.
11. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioners, the exemption from advance service to the Defendants is granted.
12. The Application is disposed of.
CS (COMM) 1386/2025
13. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.
14. Issue Summons. Let the Summons be served to the Defendants CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 2 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fee.
15. The Summons shall state that the Written Statement(s) shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file Affidavit(s) of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
16. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiffs to file Replication(s), if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication(s) filed by the Plaintiffs, Affidavit(s) of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendants be filed by the Plaintiffs, without which the Replication(s) shall not be taken on record.
17. In case any Party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
18. If any of the Parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
19. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 23.02.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.
I.A. No. 32273/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
20. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to Commercial Suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
21. The Plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
22. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 3 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 I.A. No. 32271/2025 (seeking administration of interrogatories)
23. This Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 2 of the CPC as amended by the CC Act read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking administration of interrogatories upon the Defendants.
24. Issue Notice.
25. Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within a period of four weeks from the date of service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
26. List before the Joint Registrar on 23.02.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.
27. List before this Court on 17.04.2026.
I.A. No. 32269/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)
28. Issue Notice. Notice be served through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.
29. The present Suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the patent and trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, damages, delivery up, acts of unfair competition and dilution, etc.
30. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following submissions:
30.1. Plaintiff No. l is engaged in the business of, inter alia, agricultural chemicals such as pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, fertilizers and the like and is a global producer of crop protection products, intermediates, chemicals operating in every continent of the world and has a customer base in over 100 countries.
30.2. Plaintiff No. 1 has developed several new technologies for CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 4 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 control of unwanted weeds and pests. Plaintiff No. 1 has an extensive network of distributors in India and has manufacturing facilities at several locations in India including Gujarat for production of range of products including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides etc. Plaintiff No. 1 has developed a reputation within the industry and trade for the quality, technological strength and innovations in its products and invested considerable funds in research and development thereof.
30.3. Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in the business of providing crop protection solutions for the Indian market. Plaintiff No. 2's products include herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, acaricides, seed treatment, adjuvants, bio solutions, fumigants, post-harvest solutions amongst others.
30.4. Indian Patent No. 264528 registered in the name of Plaintiff No. 1 as IN'528 titled 'SYNERGISTIC HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS' ("Suit Patent") discloses and claims an herbicidal emulsifiable concentrate comprising 16.5% by weight of acifluorfen sodium and 8% by weight of clodinafop propargyl. The combination of these two active ingredients was prepared by mixing sodium acifluorfen with clodinafop propargyl, in an amount to obtain about a 16.5%(w/v) sodium acifluorfen and 8% (w/v) clodinafop propargyl, respectively in emulsifiable concentrated (EC) formulation.
30.5. The objective of the Suit Patent is to provide a non-phytotoxic, stable synergistic composition of acifluorfen and clodinafop-
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 5 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 propargyl in defined percentages. The acifluorfen sodium soluble liquid formulation is known to produce phytotoxicity to the desired crop and shows signs of phytotoxicity such as leaf scorching, cupping, crinkling and speckling. Such damage affects the quality and overall yield of the desired crop. Therefore, there was a long felt need in the art for acifluorfen sodium formulations that solve the problem of phytotoxicity. Similarly, it is known in the art that clodinafop-propargyl is ineffective against several broad leaved weeds. It was further found that a major problem with clodinafop-propargyl is that it undergoes hydrolysis in the presence of an aqueous medium in an acidic environment, rendering it incapable of being formulated as a stable formulation along with acifluorfen sodium as a stable soluble liquid formulation. Accordingly, the art lacked a stable formulation comprising clodinafop-propargyl and acifluorfen sodium or fomesafen sodium that addresses both the degradation of clodinafop-propargyl in an aqueous medium and the problem of phytotoxicity induced by the active ingredients. The Suit Patent overcomes significant technical problems encountered in the prior art by formulating an emulsifiable concentrate of acifluorfen and clodinafop- propargyl which is stable and non-phytotoxic.
30.6. In view of the novelty and inventive step, including efficacy studies, in the herbicidal composition of acifluorfen sodium (16.5 % by weight) + clodinafop propargyl (8 % by weight), the Suit Patent was granted in favour of Plaintiff No. 1.
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 6 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 30.7. Plaintiff No. 1 is working the Suit Patent through its product 'IRIS' ("Plaintiffs' Product"), a post-emergent broad spectrum selective herbicide for controlling diversity of weeds and grasses present in crops applied after a plant has emerged (sprouted) from the soil and developed leaves, typically referring to treatments like herbicides that kill existing, growing weeds, unlike pre-emergent that stop seeds from sprouting. 30.8. The Plaintiffs have spent substantial amount of money in marketing the Plaintiffs' Product bearing the Mark 'IRIS' ("Subject Mark"). The present trade dress of the Plaintiffs' Product bearing the Subject Mark is ("Subject Trade Dress"). The Subject Mark was adopted on 19.03.2009 and the Plaintiffs commenced use of the Subject Mark in respect of the Plaintiffs' Product on or about April 2014.
30.9. The Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage ("DPPQS") constituted under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has also granted registration under Section CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 7 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 in favour of Plaintiff No. l under the registration No. CIR- 1469/2013(343)- sodium acifluorfen + clodinafop propargyl (EC )-01 on 07.02.2014. 30.10.After securing statutory approvals in the year 2014, the Plaintiffs' Product was launched and has achieved success since its launch. Plaintiff No. 2 has been marketing and selling the Plaintiffs' Product bearing the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress since 2024 as per internal arrangement of the Plaintiffs.
30.11.Plaintiff No. 1 has obtained trade mark registration of the Word Mark 'IRIS' in respect of goods including herbicide in Class
05. Plaintiff No. 2 as permitted by Plaintiff No. 1 has also applied for registration of a Device Mark as illustrated below:
Trade Mark Application Class Registration Status Valid up to Date No. IRIS 19.03.2009 5 1797308 Registered 19.03.2029 11.01.2024 5 6256644 Pending Not Applicable 30.12.The Plaintiffs' Product bearing the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress is consistently advertised, distributed, and sold nationwide for over a decade through offline modes as well as various e-commerce platforms and has been extensively promoted amongst the relevant trade and public.CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 8 of 26
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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 30.13.A cursory online search for 'IRIS herbicide' commonly returns the Plaintiffs' Product and historical trade dresses / labels of the Plaintiffs' Product, reinforcing source association and secondary meaning thereto with the Plaintiffs. Therefore, given the duration and extent of use, wide geographical spread and intensive advertising, market presence, customer recognition and association and distinctiveness of the Subject Trade Dress and the Subject Mark, the Subject Mark qualifies for recognition as a well-known mark under Section 2(l)(zg) read with Section 11(6), (9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and is entitled to be protected as a well-known trade mark within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
30.14.On account of the extensive use of the Subject Mark over a decade, high quality of the Plaintiffs' Product and promotional activities, the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress have come to be recognised and associated solely with the Plaintiffs and none else and is also a testament to the immense goodwill and reputation associated therewith.
30.15.The Plaintiffs, at the beginning of November 2025, came to know through its market sources that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are offering for sale and selling the herbicidal composition protected by the Suit Patent. The Plaintiffs, thereafter, engaged a private Investigator to conduct a field investigation at the location of Defendant Nos. l and 2 and was made aware of the product sold bearing the Mark 'EIRISH' ("Impugned Mark") CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 9 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 under the trade dress ("Impugned Trade Dress") containing the exact same emulsifiable concentrate (EC) composition i.e. 16.5% by weight of acifluorfen sodium and 8% by weight of clodinafop propargyl as that of the Plaintiffs' Product ("Impugned Product") upon advance payment made directly to Defendant Nos. l and 2. Thereafter, on 15.11.2025, the Impugned Product was purchased by the Plaintiffs through the Investigator from Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 which was delivered to an address in New Delhi. Defendant Nos. l and 2's linkage is clear from the perusal of the invoice dated 15.11.2025 wherein the name and addresses of both Defendant Nos. l and 2 are present. In addition, the email address, [email protected] of both Defendant Nos. l and 2 is the same and found on the invoice.
30.16.Defendant No. l operates one interactive website, CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 10 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 www.royalagrotech.com, through which a consumer can send product enquiries and contact for any specific product. Defendant No. 1 also markets its products via e-commerce platform Indiamart at https://www.indiamart.com/royalagrotechraikot/enquiry.html. 30.17.Defendant No. 2, is purportedly involved in the manufacturing and marketing of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, Plant growth regulators and fertilizes. Defendant No. 3 is the manufacturer of the Impugned Product. From the perusal of the website of Defendant No. l, www.royalagrotech.com it is apparent that most of the products listed on the website of Defendant No. l, are manufactured by Defendant No. 3. 30.18.Through the investigation conducted by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs came to know that the manufacturing of the Impugned Product is being carried out by the Defendants at Rajkot, Gujarat and that the address mentioned for Defendant No. 3 on the Impugned Product is a bogus address and does not exist. 30.19.The Impugned Product is also listed on the Company Profile / Product Catalogue of Defendant No. 2 under the herbicide category, a screenshot of the same is reproduced below:
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 11 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 30.20.According to the description as appearing on the Impugned Product and also from the listing in the Product Catalogue, the composition of the Impugned Product squarely falls under the granted claim of the Suit Patent. Based on the Suit patent and the Impugned Product, the following claim mapping is set out:
Claim No. Composition as claimed in Composition of the IN'528 Defendants Product Claim 1 A herbicidal emulsifiable concentrate composition 16.5% by weight of acifluorfen sodium and 8% by weight of clodinafop Sodium acifluorfen propargyl CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 12 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 16.5% clodinafop propargyl 8% - EC [emulsifiable concentrate]- herbicide 30.21.By virtue of the rights granted under Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, Plaintiff No. 1 has an exclusive right to prevent third party including the Defendants from the act of making, manufacturing, using, offering for sale, selling, exporting, marketing or importing in India the product that infringes the granted claims of the Suit Patent.
30.22.No registration number as required under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 is mentioned / displayed on the Impugned Product. In the absence of a valid registration, the Defendants have failed to fulfil the requirements under Section 9(4) of the Insecticides, Act, 1968 and the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and the Impugned Product is likely to be harmful to plant and animal life. Since the Defendants are selling the Impugned Product without a valid license, it would be prejudicial to public health as such spurious herbicide without any quality control would be used for crops which in turn would gravely prejudice human health.
30.23.The Defendants' subsequent and recent adoption and use of the Impugned Mark which is deceptively similar to the Subject Mark is also a blatant violation of the Plaintiffs' rights in the Subject Mark. The Impugned Mark is phonetically, structurally CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 13 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 and deceptively similar to that of the Subject Mark. 30.24.In the Indian agrochemical market where consumers are spread across rural and semi-urban areas, with diverse dialects certain alphabets are pronounced differently in different regions. In certain regions (e.g., Gujarat), letter 'S' is pronounced as 'SH' and vice versa, collapsing the IRIS / EIRISH distinction and heightening confusion among the rival marks.
IRIS: आइ रस (आइ- रस) EIRISH: आइ रश (आइ- रश) Herbicides are frequently purchased by farmers in remote villages relying on oral recommendations, memory, and visual cues on labels. The close-sounding Subject Mark and the Impugned Mark would mislead the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
30.25.The Plaintiffs also caused a search on the Trade Marks Registry records and have not come across any registration and / or application for the Impugned Mark. The Defendants' use of the Impugned Mark in respect of the Impugned Product which are identical to the Plaintiff's Product, amounts to infringement of the Subject Mark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
30.26.The Plaintiffs have acquired considerable goodwill and reputation in the Subject Mark after over a decade of use and invested resources to create the unique brand and value for its customers who are mostly farmers and agriculturists. The CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 14 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 Defendant's unlawful use of the Impugned Mark which is deceptively similar to the Subject Mark, erodes / dilutes the goodwill and reputation that the Plaintiffs have garnered in the Subject Mark. The customers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, in the instant case, farmers and agriculturists, will be misled by presumption that there is an association between the Plaintiffs' Product and the Impugned Product. The use of the Impugned Mark by the Defendants also constitutes misrepresentation, misappropriation and passing off of the Impugned Product as that of the Plaintiffs' Product. 30.27.The Defendants are also violating the Subject Trade Dress in order to pass off the Impugned Product as that of the Plaintiffs' Product. The Impugned Trade Dress replicates the green background of the label, horse imagery, bottle and the cap colour combination and overall get-up of the Subject Trade Dress, which are source-identifiers for the Plaintiff's Product under the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress. Such slavish imitation evidences mala fides of the Defendants and their intention to pass off the Impugned Product as that of the Plaintiffs' Product.
30.28.The adoption of the Impugned Mark and the Impugned Trade Dress by the Defendants also constitutes an act of unfair competition in as much as the Defendants having seen the success and popularity of the Plaintiffs' Product, the Defendants have replicated it by making cosmetic modifications thereto in the form of the Impugned Mark with CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 15 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 the sole intention to take unfair advantage of the financial and human resource invested by the Plaintiffs to build the brand, without incurring any cost itself. The Defendants are also offering the Impugned Product albeit surreptitiously in the agriculture sector with the sole intention of wrongfully exploiting the brand equity and goodwill built up by the Plaintiffs and make illicit profits.
30.29.The Impugned Product is being sold at a price of Rs 1,100 for 1 litre which is lower than the sales price of the Plaintiffs' Product which is offered for sale at a price of Rs 1,800 for 1 litre. It is therefore evident that the Defendants have every intention to sail close to the Plaintiffs' Product and to undercut the Plaintiffs in terms of pricing.
30.30.The Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress, by virtue of continuous, extensive, and exclusive use, enjoys substantial goodwill and distinctiveness in the minds of the consuming public. The Impugned Mark and the Impugned Trade Dress weaken the unique association between the Subject Mark, Subject Trade Dress and the Plaintiffs' Product, thereby blurring their distinctiveness and tarnishing their reputation. The mala fides of the Defendants are evident from the tabular comparison below:
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 16 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 Similarities in Trade Dress of the Prior IRIS Trade Current Trade essential features Infringing Product Dress of the Plaintiffs Dress of the under the Impugned product under the Plaintiffs product Mark "EIRISH" trade mark "IRIS" under the trade mark "IRIS"
Overall look and
feel, get up and
placement of
individual elements
Colour Scheme The cylindrical The cylindrical The cylindrical
bottle in bright bottle in bright bottle in matt
yellow yellow threaded yellow threaded
Threaded red maroon red screw parrot green
screw cap cap screw cap
Representation of "EIRISH" written in "IRIS" written in "IRIS" written in
the brands white font on a white font on a green white font on a
green background background green background
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 17 of 26
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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 Usage of Horse Device of one Device of two, side Device of two Device horse/unicorn facing galloping galloping horses underneath the horse with a ring underneath the brand name and the device on a red brand name and the product composition background product composition on the label on the label 30.31.The Impugned Product is unlikely to be measurable to the quality offered by the Plaintiffs' Product, thereby directly and adversely affecting and causing irreparable injury to the goodwill and reputation that the Plaintiffs have garnered amongst the consumers and general public. This will also lead to tarnishing the brand value which the Plaintiffs have built over a decade.
30.32.The Defendants' acts would cause immense damage to the Plaintiff's business and public interest which cannot be accounted for in monetary terms, it would also be in blatant disregard of the Plaintiffs intellectual property rights. In addition, the Plaintiffs would lose substantial sales, if the Defendants are permitted to continue use, manufacture, offer for sale, sale and export the Impugned Product in contravention of Plaintiff No.1's intellectual property rights. 30.33.If the Defendants are not restrained from using, manufacturing, selling, distributing the Impugned Product it will cause irreparable injury and damages to Plaintiff No. 1 in their potential business which cannot be quantified in monetary CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 18 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 terms. The alleged actions of the Defendants are aimed to demonstrate a false association with the business of the Plaintiffs in order to gain unjust benefit from the Plaintiffs in respect of identical products, i.e., herbicides. 30.34.The use of the Impugned Mark and the Impugned Trade Dress by the Defendants will create confusion with the ordinary consumer, who are farmers and agriculturists who would certainly be influenced to purchase the Impugned Product, on the presumption that it is associated with the Plaintiffs. The alleged actions of the Defendant with an intention to lure customers would result in the erosion of the Plaintiffs' rights in the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress, and dilution and tarnishing the goodwill and reputation of the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress. The Defendants' actions constitute infringement and are calculated to ride on the Plaintiffs' goodwill, causing irreparable harm to the reputation the Plaintiffs have built over the years.
31. Prima facie, the material placed on record demonstrates that the Impugned Product comprises the same concentrate composition, as claimed in the Suit Patent and the claim mapping placed on record also shows that the composition of the Impugned Product falls within the scope of Claim 1 of the Suit Patent. In view thereof, the acts of manufacturing, offering for sale and selling of the Impugned Product by the Defendants prima facie amount to infringement of the Suit Patent.
32. The material on placed record shows that Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the Suit Patent and is working the Suit Patent CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 19 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 through the Plaintiffs' Product marketed and sold nationwide under the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress. The long standing market presence of the Plaintiffs' Product under the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress has resulted in the acquisition of considerable goodwill and reputation amongst consumers and members of the trade.
33. Prima facie, the Impugned Mark adopted by the Defendants is phonetically, visually and deceptively similar to the Subject Mark. The Impugned Trade Dress reproduces the essential and prominent features of the Subject Trade Dress, including the overall colour scheme, layout, placement of elements and visual presentation. The adoption of the Impugned Mark and the Impugned Trade Dress, in respect of identical products, is likely to cause confusion amongst consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, particularly in the agrochemical sector where purchases are often guided by oral recommendations and visual cues.
34. Having considered the material placed on record and the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiffs. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, as the continued manufacture, marketing and sale of the Impugned Product bearing the Impugned Mark and the Impugned Trade Dress is likely to result in dilution of the Plaintiffs' rights in the Suit Patent, the Subject Mark and the Subject Trade Dress, and cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation, which cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
35. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants by themselves or through their directors, group company, associates, assignee CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 20 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 in business, licensees, franchises, dealers, proprietors, affiliates, partners, servants, agents, distributors, marketers, suppliers and all others in active concert or participation with them are restrained from using, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, importing, advertising, including third parties, directly or indirectly, the Impugned Product infringing the claims of the Suit Patent and bearing the Impugned Mark 'EIRISH' or any other mark identical and / or deceptively similar to the Subject Mark 'IRIS' and the Impugned Trade Dress and / or any other trade dress identical and / or deceptively similar to the Subject Trade Dress .
CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 21 of 26This 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22
36. Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks after service of Notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
37. List before this Court on 17.04.2026.
I.A. No. 32270/2025 (for Appointment of Local Commissioners)
38. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC, seeking appointment of a Local Commissioners. The Court has considered the merits of the Plaintiffs' case and has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction as recorded above in I.A. 32269/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.
39. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with, it is deemed appropriate to appoint Local Commissioners to visit the Defendants' premises at the following addresses:
Sr. Particulars Name of Local No. Commissioners
1. Office No. 706, The One Ms. Dimple D. Mody, World, A-3, 150 Feet Ring Advocate Road, Sheetal Park, Rajkot, [Mobile No.- 6355053906] Gujarat-360006.
2. Pardi Padavala Road Off- Ms. Kalpana D. Kholiya, Gondal Road Lothada, District Advocate Rajkot, Gujarat- 360024 [Mobile No.- 8320940632] Latitude: 22.171964 Longitude: 70.826490
40. The mandate of the learned Local Commissioners is as under:
a. The learned Local Commissioners shall visit the premises of the CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 22 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 Defendants as per the above table, to inspect and seize any Impugned Product, fully or semi-manufactured Impugned Product of the Defendants bearing the Impugned Mark 'EIRISH' and the Impugned Trade Dress or any other trade dress which is identical or deceptively similar to the Subject Trade Dress .
b. If knowledge is acquired of any other premises than the aforesaid premises, where the Impugned Product could be stored or services CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 23 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 can be provided from, the learned Local Commissioners are free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well;
c. The learned Local Commissioners shall also inspect and seize any product materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked impugned goods or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the Impugned Product can take place;
d. The learned Local Commissioners shall also obtain the details as to since when Impugned Product are being used by the Defendants and obtain copies of the accounts if the same is found to be sold in market;
e. The learned 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 Defendants, and take photocopy and / or record of all such transactions that pertain to the Impugned Product, 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;
f. After preparation of the inventory, the Impugned Product including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 24 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, banners, signage, cartons and other material bearing the Impugned Mark and packaging which are similar to the Subject Mark shall be released to the Defendants on superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained;
g. The learned Local Commissioners are also permitted to break open the locks, with police help, if access to the premises where the Impugned Product has been stocked / manufactured, is denied to the Commissioners;
h. Upon being requested, the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the Commissions, as per this order;
i. The learned Local Commissioners are permitted to take photographs and record videos of the proceedings of the Commissions, if it is deemed appropriate. Two representatives of the Plaintiffs, which would include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the learned Local Commissioners;
j. The learned Local Commissioners, while executing the Commissions, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendants, except for the purposes of the execution of the Commissions. The Commissions shall be executed in a peaceful manner.
41. Either the learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs or the learned Local Commissioners are directed to collect the certified copy of this Order from the Registry (Dispatch Branch) before the execution of the Commissions.
42. The learned Local Commissioners shall carry the certified copy of this CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 25 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22 Order for execution of the Commissions and a copy of the same shall be served upon the Defendants by the learned Local Commissioners at the time of the execution of the Commissions.
43. The fees of the learned Local Commissioners is fixed at ₹1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) each excluding out of pocket expenses, travel, lodging etc. All the aforesaid expenses shall be borne by the Plaintiffs and paid in advance to the learned Local Commissioners named hereinabove.
44. The Commissions shall be executed within two weeks, and the report of the learned Local Commissioners shall be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
45. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within two weeks after the execution of the Commissions.
46. It is directed that this Order shall be uploaded on the Court's website after the execution of the Commissions is completed, to enable effective execution thereof.
47. The Application stands disposed of.
48. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master TEJAS KARIA, J DECEMBER 22, 2025 ap CS(COMM) 1386/2025 Page 26 of 26 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:22