'Disproportionate': Delhi High Court Quashes ₹12 Lakh Cost On Vi-John For Delay In Responding To Dabur's Trademark Infringement Suit

Granting relief to Vi John Healthcare in connection with a trademark suit filed against it by Dabur for alleged infringement of its Meswak toothpaste packaging, the Delhi High Court set aside a cost of ₹12 lakh imposed on the former by the trial court.The costs were imposed in view of the trial court's previous order that any delay by Vi John in filing its Written Statement shall only be considered subject to a cost of ₹25,000/- for each day of delay.Justice Tejas Karia however observed that the delay was attributable to parties' attempts to amicably settle the matter. Dabur claimed Vi-John toothpaste had deceptively similar packaging as its Meswak toothpaste and it was further aggrieved by the descriptive use of the word “MISWAK” by Vi-John on its packaging.Trial court had, vide first impugned order, directed Vi-John to file its Written Statement within 30 days, failing which cost of ₹25,000/- for each day of delay will be imposed.V-John later filed its response with some delay and explained that the same was due to attempts at settlement.The Trial Court however imposed a cost of ₹25,000/- for each day of 48 days' delay, amounting to ₹12,00,000/-. It reasoned that it is bound by the First Impugned Order.The High Court was of the view that the First Impugned Order was passed peremptorily, as a caution, and there was no delay on part of Vi-John on the said day. It added,“Although the First Impugned Order states that the same is final insofar as it relates to imposition of cost in case of any delay in filing the Written Statement, there is no absolute bar on the learned Trial Court to consider the subsequent developments and condone the delay if justifiable grounds are made out in the Application for condonation of delay.”The High Court held that any application filed by the parties has to be decided on its own merits, independently, without being influenced by the previous orders passed by the same court— in case there are subsequent developments or change in circumstances“It is incumbent upon the Court to examine the facts and submissions without being influenced by the previous orders passed in a different context. The Court should at least examine the grounds made out for delay and cannot brush it aside only on the ground that the previous order was binding.”The High Court further held that the Trial Court lost sight of the implications of cost amounting to ₹12,00,000/, in a suit where the main relief sought was payment of ₹2,50,000/- damages. “Clearly, the cost imposed by the learned Trial Court in the Second Impugned Order was disproportionate to the main relief sought in the Suit,” Court said and set aside the cost.Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Harshita Chawla, Mr. Angad Deep Singh & Ms. Mohona Sarkar, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Mohd. Sazid Rayeen & Mr. Avijit Sharma, Advocates.Case title: Vi-John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India LimitedCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 928Case no.: CM(M)-IPD 15/2025Click here to read order

'Disproportionate': Delhi High Court Quashes ₹12 Lakh Cost On Vi-John For Delay In Responding To Dabur's Trademark Infringement Suit

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags