Delhi High Court Overturns Trial Court, Temporarily Bars Use of ‘DINDAYAL’ Mark for Ayurvedic Goods

Delhi High Court Overturns Trial Court, Temporarily Bars Use of ‘DINDAYAL’ Mark for Ayurvedic Goods

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection in favour of Dindayal Industries Limited, restraining a Haryana-based ayurvedic manufacturer from using the mark “DINDAYAL” for ayurvedic products. The Court held that the use of an identical mark by a rival entity operating in the same trade was likely to cause consumer confusion and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

Factual Background

Dindayal Industries Limited, a Madhya Pradesh-based company, has been engaged for several decades in the manufacture and sale of ayurvedic and herbal medicines. Its products are marketed under registered composite trademarks in which the word “DINDAYAL” constitutes the dominant and source-identifying feature. Through long and continuous use, the company claimed to have acquired substantial goodwill and consumer recognition.

The respondent, Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan, is a Haryana-based manufacturer dealing in identical ayurvedic products. It adopted the trade name and mark “DINDAYAL” in connection with its ayurvedic preparations, leading to the present dispute.

Procedural Background

Dindayal Industries instituted a trademark infringement and passing-off suit before the Trial Court and sought interim relief restraining the respondent from using the mark “DINDAYAL.” The Trial Court declined to grant interim protection, accepting the respondent’s argument that “DINDAYAL” was a common and personal name and that the plaintiff did not hold a standalone registration for the word mark.

Aggrieved, Dindayal Industries filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla heard the appeal and passed the impugned order on December 22, 2025.

Issues

1. Whether Dindayal Industries had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off.

2. Whether the absence of a standalone registration for the word “DINDAYAL” disentitled the appellant from interim protection.

3. Whether the respondent’s use of “DINDAYAL” was likely to cause confusion among consumers of ayurvedic products.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant contended that it had been using trademarks prominently featuring “DINDAYAL” for several decades and that the word formed the dominant and essential feature of its registered composite marks. It argued that the respondent’s use of an identical mark for identical products through the same trade channels was likely to mislead consumers and ride on its established goodwill.

The respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that “DINDAYAL” is a common and personal name, that the appellant did not possess a standalone word-mark registration, and that it was entitled to use the name in the ordinary course of its business. It relied on these submissions to justify the Trial Court’s refusal of interim relief.

Reasoning and Analysis

The High Court rejected the respondent’s contention that absence of a standalone registration for the word “DINDAYAL” barred enforcement. It held that where a word constitutes the dominant and source-identifying part of a registered composite trademark, its unauthorised use can still amount to infringement.

The Court emphasised that both parties were operating in the same line of ayurvedic products and through identical trade channels. Applying the test of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, it observed that ayurvedic products are commonly purchased from chemists and general stores with minimal scrutiny. In such circumstances, a consumer encountering products sold under the mark “DINDAYAL” was likely to assume a connection with the appellant.

The Court further held that while a name may be common, its commercial use can acquire distinctiveness over time. Such acquired distinctiveness and goodwill cannot be appropriated by another trader to capitalise on the reputation built by the prior user.

On passing off, the Court found that the appellant had demonstrated prior use, goodwill, and reputation. It noted that the respondent had failed to establish that its adoption of the mark was bona fide. The cumulative material on record indicated an intention to mislead consumers and ride upon the appellant’s goodwill.

Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court’s order refusing interim relief. It held that Dindayal Industries had established a strong prima facie case of infringement and passing off, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that continued use of the disputed mark would cause irreparable harm.

Accordingly, the Court restrained Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan and all persons acting on its behalf from using the mark “DINDAYAL” or any deceptively similar mark in relation to ayurvedic products during the pendency of the suit.

In this case the appellant was represented by Ms. Rajeshwari H. and Ms. Nupur A. Goswami, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Suhail Sehgal, Mr. Prashant Drolia, Mr. Lakshay Singh, Mr. Ronald Raj Datt and Mr. Akash Jiangra, Advocates.