This appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi arises from a suit for trademark and design infringement, passing off, and damages, decreed ex parte by the Commercial Court in favour of the plaintiff, Pneumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd. The suit alleged unauthorized use of trademarks and design by former employees in collusion with Oxygun Health Pvt. Ltd., seeking to replicate Pneumo Care's products. The Commercial Court passed a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC owing to failure of the defendants to file a written statement within the statutory period. The appeal in RFA (COMM) 271/2025 challenged the decree on procedural and substantive grounds.

• Detailed Factual Background:
  • Pneumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd. claimed to be a leading medical device manufacturer specializing in critical care and orthopaedic products.
  • It alleged commercial use of the trademarks "HOSPIGRIP" and "HOSPICUFF" since 2016, registered under Class 10 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
  • Pneumo Care also owned a registered design (No. 325003-001) for ankle and wrist restrainers under the Designs Act, 2000.
  • Oxygun Health Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 2020. Two of its directors were previously associated with Pneumo Care—one as a general manager and the other terminated in 2022.
  • Pneumo Care alleged Oxygun used insider knowledge to replicate its trademarks and designs to manufacture and sell similar products.
  • Comparative images, packaging, branding, and technical specs were cited to show alleged similarities.
  • Pneumo Care claimed the defendants passed off their products as those of the plaintiff, infringing intellectual property and brand value.
• Detailed Procedural Background:
  • Pneumo Care filed CS (Comm) 523/2023 before the Commercial Court, Rohini. Summons served on 08 August 2023.
  • Oxygun filed its written statement on 01 February 2024, over 120 days after service—violating Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
  • The Commercial Court, citing SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., struck off the written statement.
  • Defendants' challenge (CM(M)-IPD 23/2024) was dismissed for non-prosecution on 28 November 2024.
  • The Court proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, granting permanent injunction, ₹3 lakhs in damages, and other reliefs on 05 November 2024.
  • This judgment was challenged in RFA(COMM) 271/2025.
• Issues Involved in the Case:
  • Whether a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC could be challenged on the ground of non-user of the trademark?
  • Whether the Commercial Court erred in granting ex parte decree of injunction and damages without further evidence?
• Detailed Submission of Parties:
  • Appellants:
    • Trademark "HOSPIGRIP" had fallen into disuse; hence, no infringement.
    • No proof of actual loss or damage—damages were speculative.
    • Appellants 4 and 5 were wrongly implicated without proof.
  • Respondents (Pneumo Care):
    • Defendants barred from any defense due to struck-off written statement.
    • Appeal procedurally incompetent and factually meritless.
    • Decree based on registration, sales figures, and Local Commissioner's report.
• Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited:
  • SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.: Strict 120-day limit for written statements in commercial suits.
  • Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan: Even under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, courts must assess plaintiff's prima facie case.
  • Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad: Default judgment must be supported by evidence.
  • Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta and others: Decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC valid if claim is unchallenged.
  • Koninklijke Philips v. Amazestore and Rule 20, IPD Rules, 2022: ₹3 lakh damages justified despite no concrete financial loss.
  • Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai: Trademark rights exist unless cancelled under Section 47.
• Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge:
  • Appellants forfeited right to defense due to procedural default.
  • Allegation of non-user was evidentiary, not argued properly at trial.
  • Registered trademarks were valid and enforceable.
  • Comparative data, LC report, and sales figures supported injunction and damages.
  • Damages were proportionate to deliberate and dishonest conduct.
  • Collateral challenges on new grounds not permissible on appeal.
• Final Decision:
  • Appeal dismissed. Decree of Commercial Court upheld.
  • Damages and costs affirmed.
  • Court emphasized strict procedural compliance in commercial litigation and protection of IP rights.

Law Settled in this Case:
A written statement filed beyond 120 days in a commercial suit cannot be taken on record. Procedural deadlines under the Commercial Courts Act are strict and final. A defendant cannot raise factual defenses in appeal which were never pleaded or proven before the trial court due to procedural default.

Non-use of a registered trademark cannot be pleaded as a defense in an infringement action unless the mark is first removed through proceedings under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. Decrees under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC must be based on un controverted, prima facie credible pleadings and documentary evidence. Courts may award statutory damages under IPD Rules and judicial precedents, even in the absence of quantified actual losses, when mala fide infringement is established.

Case Title: Oxygun Health Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Pneumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Order: 13 May 2025
Case No.: RFA(COMM) 271/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3897-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul

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: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539