Synopsis

The appellant (defendant) was restrained by a learned Single Judge from using certain trade dresses (bottle shapes) for its toilet cleaner and glass cleaner products sold under the trademark ‘GAINDA’. The appellant had been selling these products since 2016. The suit was filed in 2025, and the injunction was granted on 28th March 2026. Pending appeal, the appellant sought permission to exhaust its existing packaged and unpackaged stock. The Division Bench granted limited permission, allowing the appellant to use 2,40,000 empty bottles for toilet cleaner (with yellow caps and revised yellow label) and 1,20,000 empty bottles for glass cleaner (with white spray nozzles). The court set timelines for packaging (by 31.05.2026), sale to distributors/retailers (by 31.07.2026), and sale by retailers (by 31.12.2026). The court held that balancing equities required granting time to exhaust stock to avoid financial loss and environmental waste, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V. Kameswara Rao and Honourable Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Date of Judgment: 21st April 2026

Citation: FAO(OS) (COMM) 88/2026 (2026:DHC:3282-DB)

Core Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999; Designs Act, 2000; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 (interim injunction); Intellectual property – trade dress infringement, passing off

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 27, 28, 29 (infringement), 135 (passing off)

• Designs Act, 2000 – lapsed design registrations (referred to in arguments)

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 (interim injunction); Order 43 Rule 1 (appeal against interim order)

• Letters Patent of the High Court of Delhi – Clause XV (intra‑court appeal)

Key legal principles applied

Balancing of equities in interim injunction appeals: While an injunction order is under challenge, the appellate court may grant limited permission to the defendant to exhaust existing stock to prevent irreparable financial loss and environmental waste, especially when the defendant has been in the market for a significant period.

Distinction between packaged stock already in the market and unfinished stock: The court may permit sale of goods already with distributors/retailers without modification, but may require modifications (e.g., change of caps, labels, nozzles) for unpackaged inventory to reduce alleged similarity.

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