Delhi High Court Brands Counterfeit Supplements a Public Health Threat, Injuncts Fake ‘ISOPURE’ Network

Delhi High Court Brands Counterfeit Supplements a Public Health Threat, Injuncts Fake ‘ISOPURE’ Network

Introduction

The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of GPN Commercial LLC, restraining multiple unknown entities from manufacturing and selling counterfeit products under the “ISOPURE” trademark. The Court emphasized that counterfeiting poses serious risks not only to brand reputation but also to public health.

Factual Background

GPN Commercial LLC, a global sports nutrition company, is the registered proprietor of the “ISOPURE” trademark, used since 2014 in relation to dietary supplements and protein products. The brand has acquired substantial goodwill internationally and in India through widespread sales, marketing efforts, and endorsements. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered a network of counterfeiters producing and selling fake ISOPURE products, often using substandard ingredients that could potentially harm consumers.

Procedural Background

Following customer complaints, the plaintiff conducted an investigation that revealed unauthorised manufacturing and distribution of counterfeit products. A Local Commissioner appointed in earlier proceedings inspected premises linked to the counterfeit network and recovered significant quantities of fake packaging materials, including jars, lids, scoops, and printing machinery. Based on this material, the plaintiff approached the High Court seeking urgent injunctive relief, which was granted on March 11, 2026.

Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ activities constituted trademark infringement and counterfeiting.

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunction against unknown infringers.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiff contended that the defendants had deliberately adopted the ISOPURE mark to deceive consumers and profit from the brand’s established reputation. It argued that counterfeit products were not only harmful to its goodwill but also posed serious health risks due to unregulated and potentially unsafe ingredients. The plaintiff further emphasized its statutory rights as a registered trademark proprietor under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The defendants, being unidentified and unrepresented at this stage, did not present any counter-contentions.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, noting that the counterfeit goods were identical in appearance and branding to the genuine products. It observed that such imitation was likely to cause confusion among consumers and amounted to clear misappropriation of the plaintiff’s intellectual property.

The Court also underscored the seriousness of counterfeiting, particularly in the context of consumable products, where substandard goods could pose significant health risks. Relying on the principles governing grant of interim relief, the Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would be caused if the defendants were allowed to continue their activities. It further reiterated that registered proprietors are entitled to exclusive use of their trademarks and to restrain others from unauthorized use.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, storing, selling, or dealing in counterfeit products bearing the “ISOPURE” trademark until the next date of hearing.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate I.S. Alagh with Advocates Raunak Singh, Kamlendra Singh, Anukriti K. and Anubhav.