* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026 + CS(COMM) 256/2018 HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. AND ANR. …..Plaintiffs Versus RAKESH GOYAL AND ORS. .....Defendants Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Saif Khan & Mr. Shobhit Agrawal, Advocates for P-1.

Mr. Abhijit Mittal, Mr. Anukalp Jain, Ms. Shaivya Singh & Mr. Nishtha Nanda, Advocates for P-2.

For the Defendants : None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present Suit has been filed seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants from engaging in the sale, manufacture, distribution, and advertising of counterfeit fast moving consumer goods (“FMCG”), such as shampoos and creams, causing infringement of Trade Marks and Copyright, Passing off, tarnishing the reputation, damages, seeking delivery up etc.

2. The Plaintiffs had conducted independent and joint raids at the premises of the Defendants on 17.10.2002, 29.01.2003 and 10.05.20023 for selling counterfeit goods (“Counterfeit Goods”) under the following Marks of the Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs’ Marks”):

Plaintiffs’ Marks Goods Category Fair & Lovely Skin care and shampoos Sunsilk Clinic Plus Pond’s/Pond’s Dreamflower Cosmetics and toiletries Lakme Elle 18 Vaseline Rexona Aviance Denim Lifebuoy Soap Lux Rexona Liril Hamam Breeze Le Sancy Dove Pears Surf Fabric Wash Rin Wheel OK

501 Bar 501 Star Sunlight Bar/Powder Vim Household and oral care items Close Up Pepsodent Brooke Bond Beverages Lipton Kissan Tomato products and fruit products Kissan Frozen vegetables Birds Eye

3. Despite being subjected to criminal raids against the Defendants they had refused to stop the infringing activities and, therefore, the Plaintiffs were forced to file the present Suit. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4. Vide Order dated 11.05.2005, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in I.A. No. 3781/2005 against the Defendants and anyone acting under the authority of the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising, offering for sale, products having the Trade Mark(s) or any other Mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Marks.

5. Vide Order dated 09.11.2005, Defendant No. 4 was directed to be proceeded ex-parte. On 16.01.2006, this Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff are the proprietors of the trade marks in issue in the suit, if so, to what effect? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs hold the copyright involved in the suit, if so, to what effect? OPP

3. Whether the defendants have infringed the trade marks of the plaintiffs, if so, to what effect? OPP

4. Whether the defendants have infringed the copyright of the plaintiffs, if so, to what effect? OPP

5. Whether the defendants have passed off their goods as that of plaintiffs, if so, to what effect? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for damages, if so, how much and from which of the defendants? OPP

7. Whether the plaint has been signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorised person on behalf of the plaintiffs? OPP

8. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs has been properly valued for the purpose of course fee and jurisdiction and requisite court fee has been paid by the plaintiff? OPP

9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for interest, if so, on what amount, at what rate and for what period? OPP

10. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder of parties, if so, to what effect? OPD

11. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be stayed in view of the pendency of criminal cases, if so, to what effect? OPD

12. Whether the plaintiffs are distributing pirated goods to small time retailed for evading tax? OPD

13. Relief.

6. It was further directed that Issues 8 and 11 were to be considered as preliminary issues in the present Suit. Vide Order dated 26.04.2006, the Plaintiffs gave up their claim for rendition of accounts and, accordingly, Issue No. 8 was decided in favour of the Plaintiffs, and it was held that the Suit had been properly valued and the requisite court fees had been p