Back
Extends Dabur's Deadline To Exhaust 'Cool King Thanda Tel' Cartons Till November
The on Friday granted a two-month extension to exhaust its existing stock of 9,020 cartons of “Cool King Thanda Tel,” in the ongoing trademark and dispute with . The deadline, originally set for , by the , now stands extended until , subject to all previously imposed conditions remaining in force.
A bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed the order while declining to interfere with the Division Bench’s judgment concerning the disposal of the stock. “The order dated , coupled with all the conditions mentioned therein, is extended by two months from today,” the ordered, effectively giving Dabur additional breathing room to sell off the inventory that had been manufactured before the took effect.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute traces back to Emami’s trademark suit alleging that Dabur’s “Cool King Thanda Tel” product adopted a to its own. On , a Single Judge granted an restraining Dabur from selling the product under the impugned or any variant. The Single Judge found that the overall visual appearance—including layout and colour scheme—was likely to mislead consumers into associating Dabur’s product with Emami’s.
Dabur challenged the injunction before the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal on , upholding the injunction. The Division Bench held that the visual similarity was undeniable and that the lay in favour of Emami. Four days later, on , Dabur approached the Single Judge seeking permission to exhaust its existing stock. On , the Single Judge allowed Dabur to sell the stock manufactured up to , until September 30, subject to several conditions—including a requirement to recall any unsold stock after that date and to maintain accurate accounts of sales and inventory.
Emami challenged the order before the Division Bench, arguing that the Single Judge had no jurisdiction to grant such permission after the injunction had been upheld in appeal. The Division Bench agreed, holding that the Single Judge’s January 31 order had merged into the Division Bench’s May 22 judgment. Consequently, any clarification, variation, or relaxation of the injunction had to be sought before the Division Bench or a superior court. Nevertheless, the Division Bench did not revoke the permission; instead, it treated the conditional permission as “deemed to have been granted by this Court” and allowed Dabur to proceed with the disposal under the same conditions. It also rejected Dabur’s request to modify the , stressing that allowing unsold stock to remain in the market would undermine the very purpose of the injunction.
Hearing: Arguments and Observations
When the matter reached the , , appearing for Dabur, argued that the company had acted in good faith by approaching the Single Judge after the injunction to seek time to exhaust stock. “We go back before the Single Judge saying that since injunction is granted, time may be given to us to exhaust the stocks. The learned Single Judge gives us time till 30th September,” Reddy submitted.
However, Reddy highlighted the practical difficulties in complying with the , especially when products had already moved beyond Dabur’s direct control through distributors and sub-stockists. “If the distributors have entered into further arrangements with stockists, it's a little difficult,” he said, adding that Dabur was willing to recall whatever remained within its control. “I'll recall whatever I can. What is beyond my control, I cannot.”
On the other side, , representing Emami, opposed any indefinite extension and emphasised the importance of the . He pointed out that the offending bottles could be used by retailers as display items even after the product itself was no longer being sold, thereby continuing the deception. “They give it to the retailers and tell them, you keep it on your showcase, although you don't have this product anymore, but to confuse, keep it on your showcase.”
The bench responded by underscoring the rationale behind the recall requirement. “That's why it's important that those shops remove those bottles because you are actually my trademark and my ,” the Court observed.
Noting that Dabur had already enjoyed a substantial period to sell the stock—from January to September—the bench expressed reluctance to grant further leniency without the recall safeguard. “He already got time till September, from January. You already got time in September... eight months, you already got. Now he needs to recall,” the Court remarked.
Ultimately, the granted a two-month extension while leaving all other conditions intact. The extension applies strictly to the 9,020 cartons already manufactured, and Dabur is prohibited from undertaking fresh production under the impugned .
Legal Analysis: The and Interim Relief
The case raises important questions about the interplay between interim injunctions and the . The Division Bench’s ruling that the Single Judge’s order merged into the appellate judgment is consistent with settled principles: once an appeal is decided, the lower court’s order ceases to have independent existence. Any subsequent application for modification or clarification must be directed to the appellate court. By deeming the Single Judge’s permission as its own, the Division Bench avoided a procedural vacuum but also set a precedent for handling similar situations where an injunction has been confirmed on appeal.
The is another noteworthy feature. In trademark disputes, the mere cessation of sales may not be sufficient to prevent ongoing consumer confusion if old stock remains on retail shelves. The court’s insistence on recall—even at the expense of the defendant’s logistical burdens—reflects a robust approach to protecting trademark rights and . This aligns with the principle that an injunction should be effective, not merely symbolic.
Impact on Legal Practice
For practitioners in intellectual property law, this case highlights the critical importance of seeking stock exhaustion orders at the earliest possible stage—preferably before an appeal is decided. Once an injunction is upheld, the window for obtaining favourable terms from the trial court may close. The must be carefully navigated, and parties should consider approaching the appellate court directly for any post-injunction relief.
The decision also reinforces the value of recall obligations in and interim arrangements. Companies facing similar disputes should anticipate that courts will require them to retrieve products from the entire supply chain, not merely from their own warehouses. The associated costs and logistical challenges can be significant, but they are viewed as a necessary price for the continued use of the mark during the exhaustion period.
Conclusion
The ’s two-month extension provides Dabur with a final opportunity to sell off its “Cool King Thanda Tel” inventory before the permanent clampdown. However, the strict conditions—including the recall of unsold stock—ensure that Emami’s trademark rights are not further eroded. The case serves as a reminder that interim injunctions in trademark matters are not merely paper orders; they carry real, enforceable consequences that extend deep into the distribution chain. As the November deadline approaches, all eyes will be on Dabur’s compliance with the recall requirement and the broader impact on trademark enforcement in India.
