Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction in Favour of Pidilite Industries in Trademark and Design Infringement Case

In a recent trademark and design infringement case brought before the Delhi High Court, the Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff, Pidilite Industries Limited, restraining the Defendants, John Doe(s) /Ashok Kumar(s) & Ors, from manufacturing, authorising the manufacture, selling, importing, exporting, retailing, distributing, marketing and/or using or dealing in the products identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks DR FIXIT and ARALDITE either as a trademark, trading name, domain name or as a part of the packaging, artwork, get-up, layout, designs or in any manner whatsoever.

Brief Facts

The Plaintiff, founded in 1959 and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is a leading entity in the adhesives, sealants, construction chemicals, hobbies colours, and polymer emulsions sectors in India. The Plaintiff has developed a strong reputation, with brands such as FEVICOL, DR.FIXIT, ARALDITE, and FEVIKWIK becoming synonymous with quality and reliability in both the Indian and global markets, is a recipient of several prestigious awards and enjoys significant social media presence across various platforms.

The Plaintiff holds numerous trademark registrations for DR.FIXIT (word mark per se) and ARALDITE (word mark per se) as well as DR FIXIT and ARALDITE distinct label/packaging, including design registrations for DR. FIXIT containers in which its products are sold. These registrations provide comprehensive protection for its products across various classes and categories.

In April 2024, the Plaintiff became aware of counterfeit products being available for sale across various wholesale markets in Delhi NCR and Uttar Pradesh regions and being visually identical to the Plaintiff’s products.

The Plaintiff sought to implead unknown Defendants (John Doe) to account for unknown entities associated with the Defendants’ counterfeiting activities, as it lacked complete information regarding the full network and source of counterfeiters. By doing so, the Plaintiff aimed to avoid premature disclosure of identities and prevent hindrance to any potential search and seizure operations.