$~54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 392/2025 ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Tusha Malhotra and Ms. Bhavya Chhabra, Advs. (through vc)

Versus DR. MARIYA PARVEZ & ORS. .....Defendants Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 15.12.2025 I.A. 31336/2025 (seeking permission to file certain video recordings in a compact disc/pen-drive)

I.A. 31337/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. I.A. 31336/2025 has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [‘CPC’], seeking permission to file certain video recordings in a compact disc [‘CD’]/ pen drive.

2. I.A. 31337/2025 has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking impleadment of the proposed defendant no. 6/Mr. Obaidur Rahman and for the extension of the interim injunction order dated 28.04.2025 to the proposed defendant no.6.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff is aggrieved by the video uploaded by the proposed defendant no.6 on his Instagram Account [‘impugned video’].

3.1. She states that the plaintiff came across the impugned video titled “Stop consuming this before its too late”, uploaded by the proposed defendant no.6 on his Instagram handle, which contains misleading and unsubstantiated statements targeting the plaintiff’s products ‘PAN-D’ and ‘PAN-40’ under the ‘PAN’ family of marks.

3.2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff states that the proposed defendant no. 6 has taken down the impugned video after being served with an advance copy of these applications.

3.3. She states that plaintiff has no objection to the proposed defendant no. 6 creating educational/informational videos addressing the potential side effects of the salts Pantoprazole and Domperidone, which are generic in nature and upon which no party has any rights but the proposed defendant no. 6 cannot specifically target the plaintiff’s brand of ‘PAN’ marks by way of using plaintiff’s family of marks and/or its products in the videos.

3.4. She states that in these circumstances, she is not pressing any further reliefs, as it appears to have become infructuous; however, the plaintiff reserves its right to approach the Court again, in case the proposed defendant no. 6 uploads the impugned video or any similar video containing identical or similar infringing content.

4. This Court has considered the submissions of the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff has an ad-interim injunction order dated 28.04.2025 in its favour, which restrains social media account users from making videos that make disparaging reference to the products of the plaintiff bearing the ‘PAN’ family of marks.

6. The impugned video uploaded by the proposed defendant no. 6 appears to be similar to the videos already injuncted by this Court vide orders dated 05.05.2025, 28.10.2025, and 27.11.2025.

7. Consequently, the proposed defendant no. 6 is also not be entitled to use or exploit the plaintiff’s family of ‘PAN’ marks in any manner whatsoever while creating or publishing its videos. It is, however, clarified that defendant no.6 will be at liberty to make videos in terms of the averments made by the plaintiff in Paragraph ‘25’ of I.A. 31337/2025, which reads as under:

“25. 1t is submitted that the Proposed Defendant No. 6 had an option to create an educational/informational video addressing the potential side effects of the salts Pantoprazole and Domperidone, which are generic in nature and upon which no party has any rights, but Proposed Defendant No. 6 made a deliberate choice to specifically target the Plaintiff’s brands “PAN-D” and “PAN 40” by way of using Plaintiff’s 'PAN' family of marks and its products in the impugned video. Further, Proposed Defendant No. 6 has created confusion and fear amongst consumers regarding Plaintiff’s 'PAN' products, causing harm to Plaintiff's reputation as well as to the public’s