Delhi High Court Stays Trademark Registration of 'Wellford Pudin Hara' in Favor of Dabur

Court finds prima facie violation of Trade Marks Act, 1999 by Wellford Pharmaceuticals, protecting Dabur's established mark 'Pudin Hara'.

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Tejas Karia, has stayed the trademark registration of 'Wellford Pudin Hara' by Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The decision comes after Dabur India Limited filed a petition to remove the registration, asserting that the mark infringes upon its well-established trademark 'Pudin Hara'.

Dabur, represented by advocates Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Christopher Thomas, and Ms. Visheshta Kalra, argued that their mark 'Pudin Hara', which has been in continuous use since 1930, is synonymous with high-quality Ayurvedic products and holds substantial goodwill in the market. The petitioner further highlighted that the impugned mark by Wellford Pharmaceuticals is likely to cause confusion and deceive consumers, suggesting a false association with Dabur.

The court found that Wellford's registration of the 'Wellford Pudin Hara' mark, intended for similar products under Class 5, could indeed mislead consumers due to the identical nature of the product lines and overlapping trade channels. The judgment emphasized that the mere addition of the term 'Wellford' does not sufficiently distinguish the new mark from Dabur's established 'Pudin Hara', thereby making the registration prima facie violative of Sections 9(2)(a) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Karia ruled that the registration of the impugned mark appears to be adopted with mala fide intent, aiming to capitalize on Dabur's established reputation. The court concluded that allowing the impugned registration to remain operative would cause irreparable harm to Dabur's business and reputation. Consequently, the court has stayed the effect of Wellford's trademark registration and prohibited them from transferring or creating third-party rights concerning the mark during the pendency of the petition.

Respondent No. 1, Wellford Pharmaceuticals, is required to file a reply within four weeks, with Dabur allowed to file a rejoinder within the same timeframe thereafter. The case is scheduled for further hearing on March 17, 2026.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting long-standing trademarks and prevents market confusion, ensuring fair competition and consumer protection.

Bottom Line:

Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Registration of a trademark that subsumes an already established and widely recognized mark, creating likelihood of confusion among consumers, is prima facie violative of Sections 9(2)(a) and 11 of the Act.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 9(2)(a), 11, and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Dabur India Limited v. Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820805