Delhi High Court: In an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for an ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 10 from selling/facilitating the sale of counterfeit products with deceptively similar packaging as that of the Plaintiff’s (Ghar Soaps) product ‘GHAR SOAPS’, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, allowed the application for ad interim injunction.
The Court further granted a dynamic John Doe injunction restraining any future or continuing infringement of the ‘GHAR SOAPS’ mark by directing e-commerce websites, including Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho, to block or suspend listings and blacklist such infringing sellers within 48 hours of receipt of complaint from the Ghar Soaps.
Background
Ghar Soaps is a Direct-to-Consumer (D2C) business dealing in personal care products such as soaps for human application, essential oils, cosmetics, etc. Ghar Soaps had filed for registration of trademark and word mark GHAR SOAPS, along with copyright registration for its packaging the applications for which are pending.
Ghar Soaps had been actively promoting its products through its e-commerce websites i.e., <www.gharsoaps.in> and <www.gharsoaps.shop>, and had garnered substantial goodwill through a loyal customer base and revenue.
Ghar Soaps averred that it had independently created and consistently used distinctive packaging for its products with unique color schemes, motifs, and presentation styles reflecting its brand ethos. Its unique packaging was the most prominent part of its trading identity and global outreach.
Ghar Soaps submitted that the e-commerce sites, i.e., Defendants 12, 14, and 15 permitted numerous third parties to sell and market infringing/counterfeit products through their platforms. The infringing sellers were permitted to unlawfully ‘latch on’ to Ghar Soaps’ trade marks and branding which enabled these sellers to misrepresent their goods as those originating from or affiliated with Ghar Soaps. The infringing sellers exploited Ghar Soaps’ goodwill and hard-earned brand recognition by unauthorisedly reproducing and using Ghar Soaps’ registered trade marks, original marketing material, product photographs, descriptions, taglines, and packaging layout, thereby deceitfully passing off their counterfeit goods as those of Ghar Soaps’.
Additionally, Defendants 1 to 9 have sought trademark registrations for marks, ‘GHOR SOAP’, ‘HAMARE GHAR KA SOAP’, with fictitious names and addresses. Ghar Soaps averred that those applications have been filed solely to misuse services such as ‘Sponsored Ads’/ ‘Amazon Ads’, ‘Brand Assure’, ‘F Assured’ etc., to gain visibility and unfair promotion by placing their listings alongside or above Ghar Soaps’ genuine products. This results in direct, unfair competition, consumer deception and harms its lawful business.
Ghar Soaps further submitted that the ‘Report Infringement’ mechanisms available on the e-commerce platforms were only partially effective, as Defendant 12 had declined to remove infringing listings on the ground that Ghar Soaps’ trademark is pending registration, Further, even where infringing listings are removed from platforms of Defendant 14, they reappeared shortly through the same or related sellers employing identity masking. Consequently, the infringing goods continue to remain in the platforms’ inventory despite delisting.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court opined that Ghar Soaps’ trade mark ‘GHAR SOAPS’ had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market through consistent use and wide-scale promotion. The distinctive qualities of Ghar Soaps’ products, coupled with their unique presentation and marketing, enabled Ghar Soaps to develop a strong brand association in the minds of the public.
The Court further stated that Defendants 1 to 8 and 10, which were unidentified and rogue entities, and were illegally listing counterfeit products by using packaging, trade dress, and presentation, deceptively similar to Ghar Soaps’ goods, were acting with mala fide intent, seeking to misrepresent and ride upon Ghar Soaps’ goodwill.
The Court opined that an average consumer would not be able to distinguish the counterfeits from Ghar Soaps’s products, and the likelihood of confusion was inevitable. Therefore, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favor of Ghar Soaps and granted an ad-interim injunction. The Court further issued directions for restraining the infringement and passing off of Ghar Soaps’ registered trademarks and copyrighted content.
The e-commerce websites were directed to block and/or suspend the infringing listings, and to delist and/or blacklist the john doe Defendants, i.e., Defendants 1 to 8 and 10.
The Court also granted a dynamic injunction allowing Ghar Soaps to approach the e-commerce websites if any other third party is found to be infringing upon Ghar Soaps brand by making a written request to the grievance officer. The e-commerce websites were directed to act upon such request within 48 hours of receipt of request. If the e-commerce websites have any reservation in acting upon the said request, they are required to inform Ghar Soaps within the said 48 hours and Ghar Soaps would be at liberty to approach the Court for grant of injunctive relief.
[YMI Ghar Soaps Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Trading, CS(COMM) No. 849 of 2025, decided on 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate, Subhash Bhutoria, Anuja Negi, Advocates
For the Defendants: Saikrishna Rajgopal, Akshay Maloo, Dheeraj Nair, Angad Baxi, Saikrishna Rajgopal, Vivek Ayyagari, Mishti Dubey, Abhay Aren, Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Om Ram, Advocates
