Delhi High Court - Orders
Sauss Home Products Private Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser India Private ... on 22 September, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025
SAUSS HOME PRODUCTS
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr Arkaj Kumar, Ms. Ramya Agarwal, Ms.
Tanya Agarwal, Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Mr.
Akshat Khanna, Ms. Srishti Arora & Mr.
Mahan Arora, Advs.
versus
RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Ekta Sarin, Mr. Rahul
Chaudhry and Ms. Vanshika Arora, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER
% 22.09.2025 CM APPLs. 60017/2025 & 60018/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025
3. This appeal assails order dated 14 August 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 14723/2023 in CS (Comm) FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025 Page 1 of 5 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 25/09/2025 at 21:46:55 539/2023.
4. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed IA 14723/2023, filed by the respondent, as the plaintiff before the learned Single Judge, and has restrained the appellant, as the defendant in the suit, pending disposal of the suit, from using the mark which was in use by it. The operative paragraph of the impugned order read thus:
"49. Accordingly, the defendant, its directors, employees, agents, servants, dealers, distributors, stockists, licensees and all persons and/or entities claiming through it are restrained from passing off the plaintiff's registered trademarks as detailed in paragraph 10 of the plaint, including the 'Robin' bird device mark , or any other identical/deceptively similar mark, in any manner whatsoever, till the final adjudication of this suit."
5. The appellant and the respondent are both proprietors of the mark, which, for the sake of convenience, we may refer, hereinafter, as the "Flying Bird mark".
6. The learned Single Judge has come to the finding that the appellant has not adduced any cogent evidence regarding its claim as user of the Flying Bird mark by it since 1976.
7. The learned Single Judge has noted that one of the newspapers FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025 Page 2 of 5 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 25/09/2025 at 21:46:55 on which the appellant placed reliance, refer to the events which had yet to take place and could not, therefore, be treated as worthy of credence.
8. Mr. Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that there were other newspaper articles which were on record, which have not been noted by the learned Single Judge.
9. He has drawn our attention to some such articles. We find that they all pertain to the period after 2012.
10. As against this, the learned Single Judge has relied on an interview given by one Mr. Shombit Ranjan Sengupta, stated to be designer of the Flying Bird logo of the respondent in the Hindu Business Line dated 1 July 1999, in which Mr. Sengupta has stated that the Flying Bird logo, which had been designed by him, had been rolled out by the respondent on its products w.e.f. 1998.
11. Ms. Ekta Sarin, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has pointed out that the statement that the new packages with the Flying Bird logo had been rolled out in 1998 was not merely a statement of Mr. Sengupta, but is a report of the reporter who is the author of the said article. She has specifically invited our attention to the following passage from the said article:
"And fly it did, in the revitalised logo seen on the new packages rolled out nationally from November 1998. This take-off is being propped up further with an advertising blitzkrieg expected to break next month, according to Shombit Sengupta- creative strategist and founder of the Paris-based Shining Strategic Identity - the man FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025 Page 3 of 5 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 25/09/2025 at 21:46:55 behind Robin taking wing on the logo."
12. The learned Single Judge has treated this evidence along with the Chartered Accountant Certificate dated 2 August 2023, to the effect that it has certified the sales of the respondent's goods from 2000 and 2023 as evidence of its goodwill and the fact that it was using the Flying Bird mark from 1998 onwards.
13. Mr. Gagan Gupta has earnestly contended that, in the absence of any specific pleading that the respondent had discontinued its earlier logo or has exclusively used the Flying Bird logo after 1998, the sales figures from 2000 could not be exclusively regarded as pertaining to sales of goods under the Flying Bird logo.
14. While we will examine this argument when the appeal is heard, we are not inclined to accept it, at a prima facie stage, so as to stay the operation of the impugned order, especially in the light of the Hindu Business Line Article dated 1 July 1999.
15. In that view of the matter, issue notice.
16. Notice is accepted on behalf of respondent by Ms. Ekta Sarin.
17. As this is a first appeal, we dispense with the requirement of exchange of pleadings.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025 Page 4 of 5This 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 25/09/2025 at 21:46:55
18. Both sides are directed to place on record short notes of their respective written submissions not exceeding four pages each, with cross reference to relevant PDF page number, along with duly indexed compilation of any judicial authorities on which they may seek to place reliance, after exchanging copies with each other at least a week in advance of the next date of hearing.
19. List for disposal in the Supplementary List on 3 December 2025.
CM APPL. 60016/2025 (stay)
20. Issue notice.
21. Notice is accepted on behalf of respondent by Ms. Ekta Sarin.
22. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the appellant, who may file rejoinder thereto, if any, within two weeks thereof.
23. List on 3 December 2025 for disposal in the Supplementary List.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
SEPTEMBER 22, 2025/dsn FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025 Page 5 of 5 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 25/09/2025 at 21:46:55