JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J. 

I.A. 12915/2026

1. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking Summary Judgment against Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction retraining the Defendants from infringement of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark and passing off.

3. Vide order dated 16.10.2024, this Court granted injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from using the Mark ‘PROTEX’ (“Impugned Mark No. 1”), and Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from using the Mark ‘PROTRILEX’ (“Impugned Mark No. 2”), or any other Mark that is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered Mark ‘PROTINEX’ (‘Plaintiff’s Mark’). Further, the Court issued summons to the Defendants in the present Suit.

4. Vide order dated 28.02.2025, this Court issued fresh summons to the Defendants through all permissible modes, upon the Plaintiff taking requisite steps.

5. Vide order dated 08.08.2025, the learned Joint Registrar observed that the affidavit of service dated 21.04.2025 records that service of summons on Defendant No. 1 had been effected on 19.04.2025, and another affidavit of service dated 10.03.2025 records that Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were served on 01.03.2025. Further, it was also observed that vide order dated 20.02.2025, it was recorded that Defendant No. 3 and 4 were served on 28.10.2024.

6. Vide order dated 14.10.2025, the learned Joint Registrar allowed I.A. No. 25624/2025 filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, thereby deleting Defendant No. 2 from the array of Parties. It was further recorded that Defendant No. 1 was served with summons on 19.04.2025, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 28.10.2024 and Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 on 01.03.2025. It was also observed that since the maximum permissible period to file the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had expired, their right to file their Written Statement stood closed.

7. Vide order dated 09.12.2025, this Court observed that none had appeared on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and, therefore, the said Defendants were proceeded ex-parte.

8. Vide order dated 27.04.2026, it was recorded that the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff had sought time to file an appropriate application seeking summary judgment, which was granted by the Court. Accordingly, the present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff.

9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff advanced the following submissions:

9.1. The Plaintiff is a part of the Danone Group of Companies, which have their origin from the year 1896. Currently, the Danone Group conducts business in over 120 countries and is one of the world’s foremost players in the specialized nutrition market as well as in the dairy and plant-based products market.

9.2. The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the Plaintiff’s Mark, which has continuously been used by the Plaintiff and its predecessors in India since 1957. The Plaintiff also possesses statutory rights for the exclusive use of the Plaintiff’s Mark owing to the registration obtained by the Plaintiff in relevant Classes, the details of which are as under:

9.3. The Plaintiff’s product bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark is a scientifically formulated protein supplement developed to address widespread protein deficiency and is marketed in multiple variants, catering to different age groups and nutritional needs. Due to its continued and sustained presence, consistent promotional efforts and extensive product portfolio, the brand has acquired significant recognition amongst consumers and healthcare professionals in India.

9.4. The products bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark are extensively manufactured by the Plaintiff, which is reflected in the table below: