Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Drools Pet Food Private Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Blep Petcare World Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1263/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chander Mohan Lall, Prashant Gupta, Karan Singh, Shivangi Kohli, Ananya Mehan
For the Respondents: None

Fair competition allows for promotion of one's own products, but disparagement of an entire class of consumer products through misleading, scientifically unfounded claims regarding health risks constitutes unfair trade practice and is subject to interim judicial restraint.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Exemption from pre-litigation mediation - Granted in view of urgency.

(B) Trademarks and Trade Disparagement - Injunction - Defendant engaged in disparagement of the entire category of ‘Kibble Products’ by labeling them as carcinogenic without scientific basis - Such conduct transcends fair promotion of one’s own product - Misleading content not protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India - Balance of convenience favors plaintiff - Interim injunction granted to restrain disparaging content.

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a leading pet food manufacturer, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant was disparaging the Plaintiff’s ‘Kibble Products’ by circulating videos and social media content falsely claiming they contain carcinogens and cause cancer in pets. The Plaintiff sought to prevent the Defendant from using such misleading information to promote its own products.

Findings of Court:
Court held that while the Defendant is entitled to promote its own wares, it cannot denigrate an entire category of products through unsubstantiated and misleading claims. Evidence indicated that the Defendant itself admitted in other videos that no direct scientific link exists between kibble and cancer. The court found that such misleading information causes irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and constitutes unfair trade practice.

Issues: Whether the Defendant's promotional material constitutes disparagement of thePlaintiff's products and whether an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Disparagement of an entire class of products through scientifically unfounded claims in promotional material loses the protection of freedom of speech and is subject to injunctive relief when it misleads consumers and inflicts irreparable injury upon a trade competitor.

Result: Interim injunction granted against the Defendant.

Table of Content
1. urgency allows for exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural directives for filing, summons, and document exchange. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. detailed factual allegations of product disparagement by the defendant. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. misleading disparagement is not protected under free speech rights. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. ad-interim injunction granted to prevent irreparable harm from misleading advertising. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)

O R D E R

% 27.11.2025

I.A. No.29506/2025 (Exemption from pre-institution Mediation)

1. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.

3. The Application stands disposed of.

I.A.29507/2025 (seeking leave to file certain videos on a CD / pen drive)

4. This Application has been filed by Plaintiff seeking permission to place on record CD / pen drive containing video clips.

5. In the facts and circumstances as stated in the Application, the same is allowed. The CD / pen drive be taken on record.

6. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.

7. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.

8. Issue Summons. Let the Summons be served to the Defendant through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fee.

9. The Summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement, the Defendant shall also file an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record.

10. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication filed by the Plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendant be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be taken on record.

11. In case any Party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

12. If any of the Parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.

13. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 20.01.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.

I.A. No.29505/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)

14. Issue Notice. Notice be served through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.

15. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction restraining disparagement and denigration of the Plaintiff’s products.

16. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:

16.1. The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The Plaintiff is a multi-national pet food company and its products are sold under the Mark DROOLS, which is the flagship brand of the Plaintiff.

16.2. The Plaintiff operates three manufacturing facilities within India, wherein it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pet food products. Owing to substantial production and sales volumes, the Plaintiff is one of the leading entities in the pet food industry in India. Substantial part of the Plaintiff’s pet food business comes from kibble, i.e., dried pet food (‘Kibble Products’), under the Trade Mark DROOLS.

16.3. Kibble Products are small, dry pellets of processed food for pets containing meat, grains, and vegetables that are dried and reshaped into small pellet-sized pieces. Kibble Products are not only consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITejas Karia, JDrools Pet Food Private Ltd – AppellantVersusBlep Petcare World Private Limited – RespondentCS(COMM) 1263/2025

Fair competition allows for promotion of one's own products, but disparagement of an entire class of consumer products through misleading, scientifically unfounded claims regarding health risks constitutes unfair trade practice and is subject to interim judicial restraint.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Drools Pet Food Private Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Blep Petcare World Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1263/2025