Court restrains defendants from using the "Stand Up" trademark and directs removal of infringing listings.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of PSTGEMS Private Limited, a health tech company, against M/s Brahmastra Pharmacy and its associates, in a trademark and copyright infringement case. The court's decision, delivered by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela on April 30, 2026, restrains the defendants from using the trademark "Stand Up" and related artistic works that are deceptively similar to PSTGEMS's registered trademarks and copyright-protected logos.
PSTGEMS, represented by Mr. Arpit Kalra and his team, initiated the lawsuit against Brahmastra Pharmacy, alleging that the defendants were infringing on its registered trademark "Stand Up" by selling a similar product under the same name. The plaintiff's legal team argued that the defendants' use of the mark and logo was likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of PSTGEMS's established goodwill and reputation.
The court examined the products and found that the defendants had placed the "Stand Up" mark identically on their labels, using similar font, style, and color, as well as other elements like the depiction of two small hearts. These similarities, the court noted, could lead to confusion among consumers, making them believe that the defendants' products were associated with PSTGEMS.
Justice Gedela referred to a previous case, "XX v. YY," where a similar issue was adjudicated, and the defendants were injuncted for infringing the "Stand Up" trademark. Given the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the defendants' use of the mark and label was likely to confuse the public and harm PSTGEMS's brand.
In addition to restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark, the court directed them to remove all listings of the infringing goods from their website and associated platforms. The order also emphasized that the interim injunction would remain in effect until the application is disposed of finally.
The defendants, represented by Mr. N.S. Rao, argued that the "Stand Up" mark was generic and lacked distinctiveness. They claimed that their product was distinct from PSTGEMS's offerings, as theirs was an Ayurvedic proprietary medicine while PSTGEMS's product was a Schedule H drug. However, the court found these arguments insufficient to negate the likelihood of confusion.
The case has been scheduled for further consideration on September 3, 2026, allowing the defendants time to file their reply and documents to substantiate their case.
This ruling underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining the exclusivity of registered trademarks. It serves as a reminder to businesses to ensure their branding does not infringe on existing trademarks to avoid legal repercussions.
Bottom line:-
Trademark and Copyright Infringement - Interim injunction granted against the defendant restraining them from using the impugned trademark "Stand Up" and similar labels/artistic works that are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks and copyright-protected logos.
Statutory provision(s): Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A, Copyright Act, 1957, Order XXVI Rule 9, Order XXXIX Rule 7 of CPC, Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908
PSTGEMS Private Limited v. M/s Brahmastra Pharmacy, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2893509
