$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 22.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on:18.03.2026 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 22/2025 & CM APPL. 45700/2025 COROMANDEL INDAG PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. J Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advs.

versus SUMITOMO CHEMICAL COMPANY LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv with Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal, Mr. Karan Singh, Ms. Shivangi Kohli and Mr. Anirudh Vats, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 18.03.2026 OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

1. The Appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated 03.07.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, wherein the application filed by the Respondents seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 (“CPC”), was allowed. The learned Judge held that the Appellant had failed to establish a cause of action to maintain the suit, deeming the same to be purely illusory.

2. Parties are referred to as they stood before the learned Single

Signature Not Veri 1 f i“eCdPC” hereinafter

Judge for ease of reference in these proceedings.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual position in a nutshell, as averred in the plaint, is that the Plaintiff, incorporated in 1983, is an Indian agro-chemical company and the parent entity of the Coromandel Group, which comprises of Agrimas Chemicals Ltd., “Agrimas” hereinafter and Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd., “CAPL” hereinafter (under liquidation). The Plaintiff asserts that under an Agreement dated 27.01.2000, CAPL was appointed as the marketing agent for the Plaintiff’s products. Subsequently, an Agreement dated 06.12.2004 was executed between the Plaintiff and CAPL, wherein CAPL was granted a royalty-based license to use the Plaintiff’s trademarks, including “PADAN 4G” and “PADAN 50SP”.

4. The Plaintiff contends that Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd. (predecessor of Defendant No.1), which later became Sumitomo Chemical Takeda Agro Co. Ltd., Signature Not Veri 5 f i“eSdumitomo JV” hereinafter (a Joint Venture with Sumitomo Chemical Co. Ltd.), and eventually absorbed by Defendant No. 1, holds the registration for the word mark “PADAN” and the device mark “ ” under Class 05, dated 18.05.1970 and 25.03.2010 respectively, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The Plaintiff claims that the non-use of the registration by the Defendants in India renders it

liable to be cancelled under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

4 “Takeda” hereinafter

5. The Plaintiff avers that it entered into an agreement with Takeda for the procurement of Cartap Hydrochloride and was granted a non-exclusive and royalty-free license to use the mark “PADAN”⁶ in India with respect to insecticides and pesticides.

6. The Plaintiff asserts that it had been using the trademark “PADAN” continuously in India since 1988. In 2006, it independently designed the artistic work for the packaging and labelling of the product bearing the impugned mark, i.e., “ ” which it claims is protected under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is further asserted that the Plaintiff has developed substantial goodwill through extensive sales, promotion, and quality control which has resulted in the acquisition of secondary meaning and

exclusive association of the “PADAN” mark with the Plaintiff.

7. The Plaintiff alleges that neither Takeda nor the Defendants or their alleged licensees have used the impugned mark in India. The Plaintiff claims exclusive use of the mark “PADAN” and its associated goodwill.

8. The Plaintiff states that in 2007, upon the compound becoming public, the Defendant ceased its supply and granted the Plaintiff a temporary license vide email dated 24.12.2007 to source the product

Signature Not Veri 6 f iAedlternatively referred to as “impugned mark”

from other suppliers during 2008 or till resumption of supply by the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff avers that the supply did not resum