Introduction

In a decisive ruling, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. (J&J) against Abbireddi Satish Kumar and ors. (CS(COMM) 801/2023 & I.A. 1741/2024, I.A. 31225/2024, I.A. 31226/2024, I.A. 1880/2025, Delhi High Court), for infringing its ORSL trademarks and trade dress. The Court found that the defendants’ marks, including ERSI and ElectroORS, were deceptively similar to J&J’s well-known brand, leading to consumer confusion. Damages totaling approximately Rs. 1.21 crores were awarded, alongside costs, highlighting strict enforcement of intellectual property rights and consequences of violating interim orders.

Background

Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd., incorporated in Singapore in 1974, acquired the ORSL brand from Jagdale Industries Limited via an Assignment Deed dated November 7, 2014. Introduced in India in 2003, ORSL covers flavored electrolyte drinks under Classes 30, 31, 32, and 33 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. J&J owns multiple registered variants, including ORS-L Lemon, Orange, and Apple, and has invested heavily in marketing, generating substantial sales and brand goodwill between 2014 and 2023. The defendants, including Abbireddi Satish Kumar (trading as M/s Sree International India) and partners of M/s Pure Tropic, produced and marketed electrolyte drinks under ERSI FRUIT DRINK, ERSI FRUIT DRINK APPLE, ERSI FRUIT DRINK ORANGE, and later ElectroORS, mimicking J&J’s trade dress, color scheme, and stylized elements.

Facts of the Case

J&J discovered the defendants’ infringing products online in September 2023 on websites such as dhonalakshmiagency.in and IndiaMart. Despite a cease-and-desist notice issued on September 5, 2022, the defendants continued operations. Local Commissioners appointed in February 2024 confirmed that infringing goods were manufactured and invoiced post-interim injunction dated December 7, 2023. The defendants claimed independent origin, denied mala fide intent, and argued lack of territorial jurisdiction. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 asserted they were merely service providers for production and had no involvement in sales or marketing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the defendants’ marks and trade dress infringed J&J’s registered ORSL trademarks under Sections 27, 29, and 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Whether passing off occurred through deceptive similarity.
3. Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
4. Entitlement to damages and litigation costs under Order VIII Rules 1 and 10 CPC.
5. Liability of manufacturers, distributors, and marketers among the defendants.

To know more about this, please check the link below.

Court Analysis

The Court observed:

• Deceptive Similarity: ERSI and ElectroORS closely mimicked J&J’s packaging, red-and-white color scheme, stylized script, and fruit device placement, fulfilling the triple identity test for infringement.
• Post-Injunction Violations: Local Commissioners’ reports evidenced continued manufacture and distribution, establishing mala fide intent.
• Jurisdiction: Affirmed under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act due to J&J’s business presence in Delhi.
• FSSAI Guidelines: Did not justify deceptive adoption of ORS-related marks.
• Damages and Costs: Awarded based on the severity of violations, invoice values, and quantities seized.

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using marks/trade dress similar to ORSL, including ERSI and ElectroORS. The Court ordered delivery-up of infringing goods and removal of references from online platforms.

Damages Awarded:

• Defendant No. 1: Rs. 52,56,864 (compensatory) + Rs. 50,00,000 (punitive)
• Defendants Nos. 2–5: Rs. 15,00,000
• Defendant No. 6: Rs. 1,00,000
• Defendant No. 7: Rs. 1,50,000
• Defendant No. 8: Rs. 1,50,000

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces strict protection for well-known trademarks in India. It underscores that:

• Trade dress, packaging, and stylized elements are enforceable under trademark law.
• Violations of interim injunctions attract aggravated damages.
• Courts will penalize deceptive adoption of marks, even if third-party guidelines (like FSSAI) are cited.

This case serves as an important precedent for brand owners in the FMCG sector and beyond, emphasizing vigilance, enforcement, and proactive legal remedies to safeguard intellectual property.