Synopsis

The plaintiff, a group company of danone, was the registered proprietor of the trademark “protinex” used for protein supplements since 1957. The defendants adopted deceptively similar marks “protex” and “protrilex” for identical goods. Despite service of summons, the defendants failed to file written statements and were proceeded ex‑parte. The plaintiff filed an application under order xiii‑a cpc seeking summary judgment. The delhi high court granted summary judgment, holding that there was no real prospect of the defendants successfully defending the suit, the marks were deceptively similar, and the defendants’ conduct amounted to dishonest adoption. The suit was decreed with permanent injunction.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 8th May 2026

Citation: CS(COMM) 905/2024 (2026:DHC:4249)

Core Law: Intellectual Property – Trade Marks Act, 1999 (sections 29, 135); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XIII-A (summary judgment).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Cs(comm) 905/2024

Danone asia pacific holdings pte. ltd. (plaintiff) vs. M/s rockwell pharmaceuticals & ors. (defendants)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice tejas karia

Date: 8th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Trade marks act, 1999 – section 29 (infringement), section 135 (relief in suit for infringement/passing off)

• Code of civil procedure, 1908 – order xiii‑a (summary judgment), order viii rule 1 (written

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.