Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
NOVARTIS AG VS. NOVARISE GASTRO BARIATRICS & ORS.
CS(COMM) 1398/2025 | I.As. 32382-88/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Swathi Sukumar, Ayush Dey, Nageshwar Kumhar, Ritik Raghuwanshi, Rishika Aggarwal, Pratibha Singh, Shrudula Murthy
For the Respondents: Manish Jha, Shilpa Gupta, Surabhi Pande, Raghav Goyal, Aditya Singh Thakur

E-commerce platforms may be held liable for facilitating trademark infringement if they fail to implement brand-gating and verification safeguards despite receiving notice of unauthorized sellers using forged documents to sell counterfeit goods.

Headnote:The Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of trademarks 'DERMDOC' and 'DERMDOC HONEST SCIENCE', filed a suit under Sections 27, 29, and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, alleging large-scale counterfeiting on the e-commerce platform of Defendant No. 1. It was contended that unauthorized sellers (Defendant Nos. 2-16) used forged authorization letters to sell counterfeit products, and Defendant No. 1 failed to implement brand-gating and verification safeguards despite notices. The Court found that the infringing products were slavish and deceptive imitations of the Plaintiffs' trade dress and packaging, establishing a prima facie case of infringement. The primary issues concerned whether the activities of the unauthorized sellers constituted trademark and copyright infringement and whether the e-commerce platform's failure to prevent unauthorized listings warranted an injunction. The Court reasoned that the similarities in the products were such that an average consumer would likely be deceived, and the failure of Defendant No. 1 to take appropriate steps for brand-gating despite diligent correspondence from the Plaintiffs justified the grant of ad-interim relief. Defendant No. 1 is directed to enforce brand-gating, preserve electronic records, and furnish sales statements; Defendant Nos. 2 to 12 are restrained from dealing in counterfeit products; Defendant Nos. 13 to 16 are restrained from circulating forged authorization letters; and Defendant No. 17 is directed to remove infringing documents from its platform.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance and exemptions in commercial suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
2. initiation of legal proceedings and service of summons. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
3. allegations of trademark infringement and failure of e-commerce brand-gating. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. determination of prima facie case based on deceptive imitation and trade dress. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
5. grant of ad-interim injunctions to prevent further counterfeiting and facilitate discovery. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

O R D E R

I.A. 32388/2025

(seeking permission for filing lengthy submissions)

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] seeking permission for filing lengthy list of dates and brief synopsis.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

3. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

I.A. 32387/2025

(seeking exemption from advance service)

4. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from advance service to the defendant nos. 2 to 12 and 18.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

6. Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.

I.A. 32386/2025

(for exemption from filling volumes of documents)

7. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing volumes of the documents.

8. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to file all documents in a single volume, at this stage.

9. In case, the registry requires the documents to be segregated in different volumes, the plaintiff will act in accordance with the directions of the dealing assistant.

10. With the aforesaid directions, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 32385/2025 (

seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation)

11. This is an application filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

12. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi , (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiffs.

13. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 32384/2025

(seeking exemption from filing clear/legible copies)

14. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing clear/legible copies and documents with proper margins.

15. Subject to the Plaintiffs filing clear/legible copies and documents with proper margins within a period of 30 days from today, exemption is granted for the present, failing which, the Plaintiffs will not be entitled to rely upon these documents.

16. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 32383/2025

(seeking leave to file additional documents)

17. This is an application filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] read with Section 151 CPC, seeking leave to file additional documents within thirty (30) days.

18. Plaintiffs, if it wishes to file additional documents will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

19. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

20. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

21. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 27, 29 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [‘Act of 1999’] and Section 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, and copyright, passing off, along with other ancillary reliefs.

22. The plaint be registered as a su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46978

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JNOVARTIS AG VS. NOVARISE GASTRO BARIATRICS & ORS.CS(COMM) 1398/2025 | I.As. 32382-88/2025

E-commerce platforms may be held liable for facilitating trademark infringement if they fail to implement brand-gating and verification safeguards despite receiving notice of unauthorized sellers using forged documents to sell counterfeit goods.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
NOVARTIS AG VS. NOVARISE GASTRO BARIATRICS & ORS.
CS(COMM) 1398/2025 | I.As. 32382-88/2025