Delhi High Court Grants Interim Stay on 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' Trademark, Protecting Dabur's Iconic 'PUDIN HARA' Mark

Case Overview

In a significant ruling for trademark protection, the High Court of Delhi has issued an interim stay on the registration of the trademark 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' (Registration No. 5509160 in Class 5), filed by Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The petition, filed by Dabur India Limited under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act , 1999, seeks the removal of the impugned mark from the register due to alleged dishonest adoption and likelihood of confusion with Dabur's longstanding 'PUDIN HARA' mark. The matter was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia on December 9, 2025.

Dabur, a heritage brand incorporated in 1884, has been using 'PUDIN HARA' since 1930 for Ayurvedic digestive care products in Class 5. The company claims prior registration since 1979 and holds 27 out of 29 registrations for variations of the mark, underscoring its market dominance and goodwill built through substantial sales and promotional investments.

Background and Legal Question

The dispute centers on Wellford's registration of 'WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' on a "proposed to be used" basis for pharmaceuticals, veterinary preparations, and related goods in Class 5. Dabur argues that the impugned mark deceptively subsumes its core 'PUDIN HARA' element, targeting overlapping trade channels and consumers. No evidence of actual use by Wellford was found at the time of filing, raising concerns of bad faith.

The key legal question is whether the impugned registration violates Sections 9(2)(a) (prohibition on marks that deceive or cause confusion) and 11 (relative grounds for refusal based on similarity to earlier marks) of the Trade Marks Act , 1999, potentially harming Dabur's established reputation.

Key Arguments Presented

Dabur's counsel, Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Christopher Thomas, and Ms. Visheshta Kalra, emphasized the mark's continuous use since 1930, its registration details, and market popularity. They highlighted sales figures and promotional expenses to demonstrate goodwill, arguing that the addition of 'WELLFORD' does not distinguish the marks. A comparative analysis showed:

| Petitioner's Mark | Respondent's Mark | |-------------------|-------------------| | PUDIN HARA | WELFORD PUDIN HARA |

This, they contended, is designed to confuse unwary consumers into associating Wellford's products with Dabur, enabling unauthorized capitalization on Dabur's reputation. Dabur sought an injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , to stay the registration's effect pending the petition.

Respondent No. 2 (the Registrar of Trade Marks) was represented by Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, with Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Om Ram. Notice was accepted, but no substantive reply was filed at this stage. Respondent No. 1 (Wellford) was directed to be served via all modes.

Court's Reasoning and Precedents

Justice Karia, after reviewing the petition and documents, found a prima facie case established. The court noted Dabur's statutory and common law rights through prior adoption and use, observing that the impugned mark "completely subsumes the Petitioner’s Mark," creating "irrefutable and real likelihood of confusion" in the public mind.

Key excerpts from the order underscore the reasoning: - "The dishonest adoption of the Impugned Mark by Respondent No. 1 is calculated to deceive and cause confusion among unwary consumers, leading them to believe that Respondent No. 1’s products originate from, or are in some manner associated with the Petitioner." - "Such adoption prima facie appears to be with mala fide intent to capitalize on the Petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation." - "The registration granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1 is prima facie violative of provision of Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act , 1999."

While no specific precedents were cited in the order, the decision aligns with established principles under the Trade Marks Act , emphasizing protection against passing off and deceptive similarity, as seen in landmark cases like Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), which prioritizes consumer confusion prevention in pharmaceutical contexts.

The court balanced convenience in Dabur's favor, holding that irreparable harm would ensue without the stay, while no prejudice to Respondents was evident at this interim stage.

Final Decision and Implications

The court stayed the effect of the impugned registration until the next hearing on March 17, 2026, and restrained Wellford from transferring or creating third-party rights in the mark. Replies are to be filed within four weeks, with rejoinders thereafter.

This interim relief reinforces the robustness of prior user rights in Indian trademark law, particularly for well-known marks like 'PUDIN HARA' in the competitive Ayurvedic and pharmaceutical sectors. For Dabur, it safeguards decades of brand equity; for the industry, it signals vigilance against opportunistic registrations. The final outcome could set further precedents on dishonest adoption in health product branding.

Other applications were also disposed: exemption from court fees granted with two weeks for payment, and leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC allowed.