Introduction

This case centres itself around a commercial intellectual property dispute where, Bajaj Resources Ltd and its affiliate, being the plaintiff sought to seek legal protection against unauthorised use of their well-known trademark “Almond Drops” by the defendant, Goyal Herbals Private Limited and others. The original suit by the plaintiff was filled in 2016 and it alleged infringement of trademark, as well as passing off and copyright violations concerning the branding and packaging of plaintiff’s hair oil product.

Summary of the case

The plaintiff, Bajaj Resources Limited filed for a permanent injunction and such other reliefs as the court may deem fit for the defendant’s use of deceptively similar mark of “Almond Drops” used for selling hair oil. The original suit, filed in November 2016, alleged infringement of trademark and trade dress, as well as passing off and copyright violations concerning the packaging, branding, and visual identity of the plaintiffs’ hair oil product.

A mediation attempt was also made by the parties on 1^st May, 2023 which eventually failed on October 6^th 2023.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff cannot claim any legal rights over the word ‘Almond Drops’ neither can it claim the rights on the colour combination of the mark that is golden and brown.

 The plaintiff had failed to prove the application of both the word mark of ‘Almond Drops’, neither could is provide evidences or witnesses claiming their application of colour mark, golden and brown. However, after the institution of the suit, the plaintiff had acquired 3 trademarks, one of which was pending to be approved. The plaintiff had made an application and had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint to reflect the newly acquired statutory trademark rights, introduce evidence from the subsequent suit, and present updated sales and advertising data to support their brand's distinctiveness and market value. These amendments were aimed at reinforcing their position by establishing both statutory infringement and enhanced goodwill.

 Arguments

Plaintiff

The plaintiffs, represented by counsel Ms. Kruttika Vijay, presented a detailed justification for their request to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, primarily based on the occurrence of new, material facts that came into existence after the original suit had been filed.

The plaintiffs emphasized that they had obtained new trademark registrations for the mark “ALMOND DROPS” during the pendency of the case. Counsel for the plaintiffs took the position that the amendments did not introduce any new cause of action, nor did they transform the fundamental nature of the suit.

Defendants

The defence opposed the claim of the plaintiff on following grounds

·       Defendant argued that the plaintiff cannot claim any legal rights over the word ‘Almond Drops’ neither can it claim the rights on the colour combination of the mark that is golden and brown, since the plaintiff failed to produce its application of the registration of the same.

·       They argued that the amendments were delayed and amounted to an attempt to strengthen a weak case post facto.

·       They contended that the inclusion of statutory trademark infringement claims would transform the nature of the suit, necessitating fresh evidence and proceedings.

·       They emphasized that the plaintiffs had not exercised due diligence and were attempting to amend the plaint only after realizing weaknesses exposed during cross-examination.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

Courts Analysis and Judgement

Justice Amit Bansal delivered an in-depth judgment focusing on the permissibility and fairness of allowing the plaintiffs to amend their plaint after the commencement of the trial, based on new facts and statutory rights acquired after the filing of the original suit.

The court first noted that the suit was first filed in 2016, which was based on the on claims of trademark and trade dress infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. At the time, the plaintiffs had a single registered trademark. Since then, they had secured three new trademark registrations and filed a fourth application. These developments occurred after the trial had already begun, making it reasonable that they were not included in the initial pleadings.

The Court also considered a well-settled principles under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows amendments to pleadings where necessary for determining the core issues of the case. Referring to Supreme Court decisions—particularly Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd.—Justice Bansal reaffirmed that amendments should be allowed when they (a) address issues central to the dispute, (b) are based on events that occurred after the filing of the suit, and (c) do not cause undue harm or injustice to the other party. The court held that if the amendments were not allowed, the plaintiffs would be forced to initiate a separate lawsuit, potentially over the same parties and subject matter. This would lead to a waste of judicial time and increase the burden on the courts. Allowing the amendments now would streamline the process and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

The Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had obtained valid statutory rights through new trademark registrations during the course of litigation. This gave them legal standing to pursue claims for trademark infringement—rights they did not possess at the time of filing. Denying them the ability to bring these developments into the case would result in an incomplete and fragmented adjudication.

The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that the amendments would unfairly prejudice them. Justice Bansal pointed out that no interim injunction had been granted in favor of the plaintiffs, and hence, any delay arising from the amendments would not materially affect the defendants’ rights or business operations. Additionally, the defendants retained the right to file an amended written statement, present fresh arguments, and even submit further evidence if required.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's decision in this case reflects a progressive and pragmatic approach to procedural law in intellectual property litigation. By permitting the plaintiffs to amend their plaint, the Court reinforced the principle that civil procedure must serve the ends of substantive justice rather a technical barrier.