Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. – Case Summary
Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.
Date of Order: 15 July 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 801/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5622
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Introduction
The High Court of Delhi, in the recent case of Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors., addressed significant questions surrounding trade mark infringement and passing off within the highly competitive market of consumer healthcare and energy drinks. This dispute involved allegations of deliberate copying of trade dress and marks associated with the plaintiff’s well-known ORSL brand.
The judgment, delivered on 15 July 2025, demonstrates the application of the Commercial Courts Act’s strict timelines and the consequences of procedural default by defendants. It also illustrates the Court’s approach in determining deceptive similarity and infringement, even when defendants attempt to circumvent injunctions through variant marks.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-incorporated entity established in 1974, acquired the ORS-L and ORSL trademarks and associated goodwill from Jagdale Industries Limited through an assignment deed dated 7 November 2014. These marks had been used in India since 2003 for flavoured electrolyte drinks.
Following acquisition, the plaintiff invested heavily in marketing and brand promotion, resulting in significant goodwill attached to these marks and distinctive trade dress, including a red and white colour scheme and stylised script.
The defendants were engaged in manufacturing and marketing fruit drinks under marks such as ORSI and ERSI, which the plaintiff discovered in September 2022. The plaintiff alleged that these marks and packaging were deceptively similar to its own, intended to mislead consumers and ride on its reputation.
Procedural Background
- Cease-and-desist notices were issued to defendant no. 1 and M/s Pure Tropic.
- The plaintiff filed a suit under Section 134(1) read with Sections 27 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- On 7 December 2023, an interim injunction was granted restraining the use of impugned marks.
- Local Commissioners appointed on 9 February 2024 discovered continued infringement.
- Defendants failed to file written statements within 120 days as required under the CPC and Commercial Courts Act.
- Their right to file was closed by order dated 27 May 2024.
- Defendant no. 1’s jurisdictional challenge was dismissed on 4 February 2025.
- The plaintiff filed for judgment under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC based on admissions.
Core Dispute
The main issues before the Court were:
- Whether the use of ORSI, ERSI, and similar trade dress infringed and passed off the plaintiff’s ORSL mark?
- Whether minor changes by defendants (e.g., ElectroORS) were enough to avoid confusion and whether they violated the interim injunction?
Discussion on Judgments
The plaintiff cited the following decisions:
- Christian Broadcasting Network Inc. v. CBN News Pvt. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11666 – for application of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC when no written statement is filed.
- Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta, (2016) 235 DLT 354 – emphasizing expeditious resolution of commercial disputes.
- South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953 – on the likelihood of confusion with identical products.
- Heifer Project International v. Heifer Project India Trust, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2847 – applying the “triple identity” test.
- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8198 – supporting damages when infringement is willful and jurisdiction is established.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The Court held that:
- Even though the marks differed by one or two letters, they used similar fonts, colours, and layouts to mimic the plaintiff’s trade dress.
- Such superficial changes (e.g., E for O) demonstrated a malafide intent to confuse consumers.
- Defendants continued manufacturing infringing goods despite notices and the injunction, as evidenced by Local Commissioner reports.
- Defendants’ claim that they were only service providers was rejected since they had active roles in manufacturing and distribution.
- Given the defendants’ procedural failure and strong evidence of infringement, judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC was appropriate.
Final Decision
The Court:
- Decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
- Permanently restrained the defendants from using infringing or deceptively similar marks or trade dress.
- Awarded actual litigation costs and damages against the defendants.
- Rejected all jurisdictional and procedural objections raised by the defendants.
Law Settled in This Case
- Under the Commercial Courts Act, failure to file written statements within 120 days results in forfeiture of the right to defend.
- Court may decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC if the plaintiff’s case is unimpeachable.
- Minor modifications to marks or packaging do not negate infringement if overall impression remains deceptively similar.
- Entities involved in manufacturing or distribution can be held liable if they knowingly aid in infringement, especially after being served notices or injunctions.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
