Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Meera Rastogi – Respondent
FAO (COMM) 182/2026 | CM APPL. 43491/2026 | CM APPL. 43489/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shravan Kumar Bansal, Rishi Bansal, Vibhor Sethi, Sarthak Sharma
For the Respondents: Kunal Khanna, Kaulik Mitra, Samanyu Bhatnagar, Rishabh Gupta, Anuj Dhar, Priyanshi Gupta
Descriptive terms common to the trade (publici juris) cannot be monopolized in passing off actions, and in commercial appeals, subsequent trademark registration does not constitute sufficient cause to condone a delay in filing the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Passing Off - Trinity of Goodwill, Misrepresentation, and Damage - To obtain an interim injunction in a passing off action, the plaintiff must prima facie establish goodwill, a misrepresentation likely to deceive consumers, and resulting damage to the plaintiff's reputation. (Para 15)
(B) Trademark Law - Descriptive Marks - Terms that are descriptive of the goods and common to the trade (publici juris), such as 'DIGESTO' for digestive preparations, do not possess source-identifying character and cannot be monopolized by a single trader. (Para 14, 26)
(C) Prior Use - Evidence of Adoption - A claimed user date in a trademark application is a mere assertion; actual adoption and continuous commercial use must be substantiated by contemporaneous documentary evidence such as invoices and bills. (Para 12.3, 22)
(D) Limitation - Condonation of Delay in Commercial Cases - Condonation of delay in commercial matters is an exception rather than a rule. The grant of a subsequent trademark registration after the impugned order does not constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning a delay in filing an appeal. (Para 30)
Issues: Whether the appeal was barred by limitation and whether the Appellant was entitled to an injunction against the Respondent's use of the mark 'DIGESTO PLUS' based on the principles of passing off.
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’], Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], read with Section 151 CPC assailing the order dated 19.01.2026 [‘impugned order’] passed by learned District Judge [Commercial Court]-01, Patiala House Court, New Delhi [‘Trial Court’] in CS(COMM) 566/2024.
FACTUAL MATRIX AS SET OUT IN THE APPEAL:
2. The Appellant, i.e., Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and sale of homoeopathic medicines and preparations.
3. In the year 1971, the Appellant, through its group concern, namely M/s Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory (India), bona fide adopted and started using the trademark HASLAB’S DIGESTO [‘Appellant’s mark’] in the course of trade. It filed a trademark application number 456926 dated 15.07.1986 in Class 5 for the trademark HASLAB’S DIGESTO [wordmark] claiming user since 01.04.1971, which was granted registration. However, the registration has expired on 15.07.1993 and was not renewed.
4. The Respondent, i.e., Meera Rastogi trading as Hahnemann Memorial Laboratory, is also engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of homoeopathic medicines. The Respondent uses the mark in a device/label 
form , and it has applied for registration of the said device/label vide TM No. 6549425 dated 29.07.2024, which is pending registration.
5. It is stated that, upon learning of the Respondent’s adoption and use of the mark DIGESTO in its trademark DIGESTO PLUS [‘impugned mark’] in relation to its goods and business in May 2024, the Appellant instituted the underlying suit.
6. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.06.2024 granted an ex- parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the Appellant and appointed a Local Commissioner. Thereafter, the Respondent entered appearance and filed its written statement.
7. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court, after hearing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, vide impugned order dated 19.01.2026, set aside the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on 12.06.2024, whilst returning a finding that the Appellant had failed to establish misrepresentation or likelihood of deception on the part of the Respondent.
8. It is a matter of record that the statutory period for filing the appeal expired on 20.03.2026. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 76 days. The Appellant stated that the appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order due to a subsequent event, i.e., the grant of fresh registration on 26.03.2026 of its trademark HASLAB’S DIGESTO vide TM No.5887111 in Class 5 dated 11.04.2023, claiming use since 01.04.1971.
9. Thereafter, the Appellant on 15.04.2026 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, in the underlying suit seeking to amend the plaint to bring on record the registration of its trademark HASLAB’S DIGESTO vide TM No. 5887111. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.05.2026. Simultaneously, the Respondent has filed a rectification petition on 23.04.2026 challenging the said trademark registration before the Registrar of Trade Marks.
10. In these facts, the Appellant has instituted the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT
11. Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the Appellant, stated that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Appellant is the prior adopter and user of the trademark HASLAB’S DIGESTO since 1971.
11.1. He stated that the learned Trial Court erred by holding that the Appellant failed to provide any documentary evidence regarding its continuous use of the mark from 1981 to 2007.
11.2. He stated that the non-renewed trademark registration of the Appellant being TM No. 456926, at the very least, proves its adoption of the mark DIGESTO from 01.04.1971 or 15.07.1986. It was submitted that the various documents produced by the Respondent are subsequent to the
