Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
DANONE ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Krishna V.S., Advocate.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking Summary Judgment against Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction retraining the Defendants from infringement of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark and passing off.
3. Vide order dated 16.10.2024, this Court granted injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from using the Mark ‘PROTEX’ (“Impugned Mark No. 1”), and Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from using the Mark ‘PROTRILEX’ (“Impugned Mark No. 2”), or any other Mark that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered Mark ‘PROTINEX’ (‘Plaintiff’s Mark’). Further, the Court issued summons to the Defendants in the present Suit.
4. Vide order dated 28.02.2025, this Court issued fresh summons to the Defendants through all permissible modes, upon the Plaintiff taking requisite steps.
5. Vide order dated 08.08.2025, the learned Joint Registrar observed that the affidavit of service dated 21.04.2025 records that service of summons on Defendant No. 1 had been effected on 19.04.2025, and another affidavit of service dated 10.03.2025 records that Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were served on 01.03.2025. Further, it was also observed that vide order dated 20.02.2025, it was recorded that Defendant No. 3 and 4 were served on 28.10.2024.
6. Vide order dated 14.10.2025, the learned Joint Registrar allowed I.A. No. 25624/2025 filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, thereby deleting Defendant No. 2 from the array of Parties. It was further recorded that Defendant No. 1 was served with summons on 19.04.2025, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 28.10.2024 and Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 on 01.03.2025. It was also observed that since the maximum permissible period to file the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had expired, their right to file their Written Statement stood closed.
7. Vide order dated 09.12.2025, this Court observed that none had appeared on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and, therefore, the said Defendants were proceeded ex-parte.
8. Vide order dated 27.04.2026, it was recorded that the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff had sought time to file an appropriate application seeking summary judgment, which was granted by the Court. Accordingly, the present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff.
9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff advanced the following submissions:
9.1. The Plaintiff is a part of the Danone Group of Companies, which have their origin from the year 1896. Currently, the Danone Group conducts business in over 120 countries and is one of the world’s foremost players in the specialized nutrition market as well as in the dairy and plant-based products market.
9.2. The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the Plaintiff’s Mark, which has continuously been used by the Plaintiff and its predecessors in India since 1957. The Plaintiff also possesses statutory rights for the exclusive use of the Plaintiff’s Mark owing to the registration obtained by the Plaintiff in relevant Classes, the details of which are as under:
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Sl. No. Trademark Application Class Date of Status Valid │ │ No. Application upto │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 1. PROTINEX 178482 05 15.02.1957 Registered 15.02.2026 │ │ (word) │ │ 2. PROTINEX 275091 30 20.09.1971 Registered 20.09.2026 │ │ (word) │ │ 3. PROTINEX 1274688 29 24.03.2004 Registered 24.03.2034 │ │ (word) │ │ 4. PROTINEX 1467423 29 06.07.2006 Registered 06.07.2026 │ │ (word) │ │ 5. PROTINEX 1467424 30 06.07.2006 Registered 06.07.2026 │ │ (word) │ │ 6. PROTINEX 1472293 05 24.07.2006 Registered 24.07.2026 │ │ (word) │ │ 7. PROTINEX 1472292 30 24.07.2006 Registered 24.07.2026 │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Signed By:NEELAM CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 3 of 11 │ │ SHARMA │ │ (word) │ │ 8. PROTINEX 3577275 05 & 23.06.2017 Registered 23.06.2027 │ │ BYTES (word) 30 │ │ 9. 5684347 05 16.11.2022 Registered 16.11.2032 │ │ 10. 5684345 05 16.11.2022 Registered 16.11.2032 │ │ 11. 5684346 05 16.11.2022 Pending - │ │ Registration │ │ 12. 5684348 05 16.11.2022 Registered 16.11.2032 │ │ 9.3. The Plaintiff’s product bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark is a │ │ scientifically formulated protein supplement developed to │ │ address widespread protein deficiency and is marketed in │ │ multiple variants, catering to different age groups and │ │ nutritional needs. Due to its continued and sustained presence, │ │ consistent promotional efforts and extensive product portfolio, │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
13. In Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784, the Division Bench of this Court held that where a customer, even for a brief period, associates the impugned marks with the plaintiff’s marks, infringement would stand attracted. It was further held that the Initial Interest Confusion Test proceeds on the principle that even if confusion is caused only at the initial stage, the same is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
14. On the basis of the documents placed on record, it is evident that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Plaintiff’s Mark and has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in respect of the products sold thereunder. A comparison of the Plaintiff’s Mark with the Impugned Marks, as set out hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that, the Defendants have merely omitted the letters ‘IN’ from the Plaintiff’s Mark ‘PROTINEX’ to devise Impugned Mark No. 1, namely ‘PROTEX’; and by adding the letter ‘R’ and substituting the letter ‘N’ in the Plaintiff’s Mark with the letter ‘L’, the Defendants have devised Impugned Mark No. 2.
15. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Marks are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, having regard to the evident structural, visual and phonetic similarity between the competing marks. There is, therefore, a clear likelihood of confusion and association in the minds of members of the trade and the public that the Defendants’ products bearing the Impugned Marks originate from, or are connected with, the Plaintiff.
16. In view of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind the dishonest adoption and use by the Defendants of the Impugned Marks, which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, with a view to deriving unfair advantage from and riding upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, the present Application for passing Summary Judgement deserves to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed.
18. In view of the order passed in I.A. 12915/2026, the present Suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in terms of the prayers contained in Paragraph No. 125(a) to (e) of the Suit.
19. Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.
20. The present Suit, along with pending Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
21. The next date of 20.05.2026 stands cancelled.
TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 8, 2026