Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Haryana Manufacturer From Using 'DINDAYAL' Mark For Ayurvedic Products

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Dindayal Industries Limited, a Madhya Pradesh-based manufacturer and seller of ayurvedic and herbal medicines, in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning ayurvedic products. The court restrained Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan, a Haryana-based ayurvedic products manufacturer, from using the mark “DINDAYAL” or any formative mark during the pendency of the suit.A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla passed the order on December 22, 2025, holding that Dindayal Industries had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off and that the Trial Court had erred in refusing interim relief. The High Court noted that “DINDAYAL” constituted the dominant and essential feature of Dindayal Industries' registered composite trademarks, it held that an average consumer with imperfect recollection was likely to assume a connection upon encountering rival products marketed under the disputed marks and the trade name “Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan.”Dindayal Industries told the Court that it has been manufacturing and selling ayurvedic medicines under trademarks prominently featuring the word “DINDAYAL” for several decades, through which it claimed to have acquired significant goodwill and consumer recognition. Seeking interim relief, it argued that the use of the same mark by another ayurvedic manufacturer for identical products was likely to cause confusion and amounted to infringement and passing off of its goodwill.The rival ayurvedic business opposed interim relief, arguing that “DINDAYAL” is a common and personal name, that Dindayal Industries does not hold a standalone registration for the word mark and that it was entitled to use the name in the course of its business. The Trial Court accepted this view and declined to grant an interim injunction to Dindayal Industries.Rejecting the argument, the court held that the absence of a standalone registration for the word “DINDAYAL” does not prevent enforcement of trademark rights where the word forms the dominant and source-identifying part of a registered composite trademark. It also noted that both businesses were operating in same line of ayurvedic products and through same trade channels, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion.“In the ayurvedic market, products are ordinarily purchased from chemists and general stores with minimal scrutiny. A consumer who has previously purchased the plaintiff's chyawanprash, syrups or other ayurvedic preparations bearing the plaintiff's registered trademarks containing the mark “DINDAYAL” is likely, on encountering the defendants' products, to assume and have a telling effect that they emanate from the same source,” the Court observed, reiterating that the test of confusion must be applied from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.It also rejected the argument that a common name can be freely adopted for commercial use irrespective of prior goodwill. It held that while a name may be common, its commercial use can acquire distinctiveness and such distinctiveness cannot be appropriated by another trader to ride on existing goodwill.On the issue of passing off, the court found that Dindayal Industries had demonstrated prior use, goodwill and that the adoption of a similar mark by the rival business was not shown to be bona fide.“The material on record prima facie establishes that such misrepresentation is causing, or is likely to cause, damage to the plaintiff's reputation and established goodwill and thereby demonstrates an intention to mislead the trade and to ride upon the plaintiff's reputation. Such conduct, when viewed cumulatively, reinforces the conclusion that the defendants' adoption is tainted with mala fides and cannot be characterised as honest adoption,” the Court said. Holding that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Dindayal Industries and that irreparable harm would be caused if the use of the disputed mark were to continue, the High Court set aside the Trial Court's order.Consequently, the court restrained the rival ayurvedic manufacturer and all persons acting on its behalf from using the mark “DINDAYAL” or any deceptively similar mark in relation to ayurvedic products during the pendency of the suit.Case Title: Dindayal Industries Ltd. v. Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan & AnrCase No.: FAO (COMM) 15/2024For the Appellant: Advocates Rajeshwari H. and Nupur A. GoswamiFor the Respondents: Advocates Suhail Sehgal, Prashant Drolia, Lakshay Singh, Ronald Raj Datt and Akash JiangraClick Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Haryana Manufacturer From Using 'DINDAYAL' Mark For Ayurvedic Products

Ayushi Shukla

Tags