Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. vs Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr.

$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 20 May, 2026
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025
DANONE ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.S. Krishna and Mr. Ashish
Sharma, Advocates.

versus

MANJU KUMARI WIFE OF SUDHIR SUMAN & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Respondent No. 1 is ex parte .
Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and
Ms. Nikita Singh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)


1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 57 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) for a direction to Respondent
No. 2/Registrar of Trademarks to remove/expunge entry relating to
Registration No. 4566089 for the mark ‘PROTRILEX’ in Class 05.
2. Petitioner is stated to be a part of Danone Group of Companies which
is engaged in its business in over 120 countries and is considered one of
world’s foremost players in specialized nutrition market as well as in the
dairy and plant-based-products market with established presence for
packaged water as well. Present petition concerns the trademark
PROTINEX which has been commercially used in India by Petitioner’s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:26.05.2026
10:47:27
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025 Page 1 of 6

predecessors since 1957 and was originally registered by Dumex Private
Limited and later acquired by Pfizer Group in 1972. The trademark was
acquired in 2006 by Wockhardt Group and eventually came to be held by
Wockhardt EU Operations (Swiss) AG.
3. It is stated in the petition that apart from common law rights in the
mark PROTINEX, Petitioner has obtained registrations in several classes,
details of which are furnished in paragraph 55 of the petition. Petitioner’s
product bearing the mark PROTINEX is a scientifically formulated protein
supplement developed to address protein deficiency and is marketed in
multiple variants catering to different age groups. PROTINEX has been used
extensively in India since 1957 and due to long, continuous and extensive
use, trademark has made a special place in the minds of members of the
public, who associate the mark with the Petitioner alone. The trademark has
accumulated immense goodwill and reputation across India amongst
substantial segment of the society.
4. It is stated that Petitioner has been extremely vigilant in protecting its
intellectual property rights over its trademark PROTINEX and this Court
has granted injunctions as also decreed suits in favour of the Petitioner
against third-parties infringing the same, as detailed in paragraph 68 of the
petition. In the year 2020, Petitioner filed CS (COMM) 306/2020 against
Alexi Pharmicia through Mr. Sudhir Kumar Suman, who is the husband of
Respondent No.1 herein for permanent injunction against infringement,
passing off etc. in respect of trademark PROTILEX. The suit was decreed
on 07.04.2022 in terms of settlement between the parties. Another suit being
CS(COMM) 905/2024 was filed seeking permanent injunction against
Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s trademark and copyright, amongst
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:26.05.2026
10:47:27
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025 Page 2 of 6

other reliefs in respect of impugned marks PROTEX/PROTRILEX, where
Respondent No. 1 herein is a party Defendant. Ex parte ad interim
injunction was granted by the Court on 16.10.2024 restraining the
Defendants from using the impugned marks. In the raid conducted on
28.10.2024, Petitioner was made aware that the mark PROTRILEX was
registered in favour of Respondent No. 1 under registration no. 4566089 in
Class 05 for “Medicines for Human Consumption, Medicines for veterinary
purpose, Ayurvedic Medicines” on ‘proposed to be used’ basis on
04.02.2021.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 1 has
adopted the trademark PROTRILEX mala fidely and dishonestly only to
create confusion amongst members of public that her products emanate from
the Petitioner and/or have some association with it. Petitioner is the prior
adopter and user of mark PROTINEX and Respondent No. 1 was
completely aware of this position including the formidable goodwill and
reputation of the mark and yet she proceeded to adopt the mark
PROTRILEX dishonestly as also secure its registration. The mark
PROTRILEX is deceptively and confusingly, visually, structurally and
phonetically similar to Petitioner’s registered trademark PROTINEX, which
was adopted in 1957 and has been continuously used. Nature of the rival
products under the rival marks being similar and trade channels and
consumer base being common, confusion among members of public and
trade and potential customers is inevitable. The application for registration
of the impugned mark was filed years after adoption and extensive use of
Petitioner’s mark PROTINEX and the Registrar of Trademarks ought to
have refused registration under Section 11(1)(b) of the 1999 Act, looking at
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:26.05.2026
10:47:27
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025 Page 3 of 6

the similarity of the rival marks and identity/similarity of the rival
goods.
6. Learned counsel further submits that Petitioner is a ‘person aggrieved’
within the scope and meaning of Section 57(2) of the 1999 Act since the
impugned mark is deceptively similar to Petitioner’s registered mark and
owing to the use of impugned mark PROTRILEX, Respondent No. 1 is not
only infringing Petitioner’s mark but is also passing off its goods as those of
the Petitioner and encashing on its reputation, causing irreparable harm. It is
further pointed out that Petitioner need not labour in establishing that the
impugned mark is deceptively similar to Petitioner’s mark PROTINEX since
this Court has decreed the suit CS (COMM) 905/2024 vide judgment dated
08.05.2026 with a clear finding that PROTRILEX is deceptively similar to
PROTINEX, visually, structurally and phonetically and there is a likelihood
of confusion and association in the minds of members of trade and public
that mark PROTRILEX originates from or is connected with the Petitioner
herein and the adoption is dishonest to derive unfair advantage from and ride
upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff. Copy of the judgment is
handed over in Court and taken on record.
7. Notice was issued in this petition on 26.03.2025 returnable on
15.07.2025. On the returnable date, matter was adjourned since service
report qua Respondent No. 1 was awaited. On 08.08.2025, Court recorded
that Respondent No. 1 was served through Speed Post on 08.07.2025 and
through email on 30.06.2025. There was, however, no appearance on behalf
of Respondent No. 1. By order dated 09.12.2025, Respondent No. 1 was set
ex parte and no steps were taken thereafter for recall of the order or joining
the proceedings. Even today, none appears on behalf of Respondent No. 1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:26.05.2026
10:47:27
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025 Page 4 of 6

Accordingly, Court has proceeded to hear counsel for the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 2.
8. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC appearing for Respondent No. 2
submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders in light of judgment
dated 08.05.2026, where Respondent No. 1 herein was a party Defendant.
9. Indisputably, Petitioner has obtained several registrations in the mark
PROTINEX and the registrations are stated to be valid and subsisting. The
mark PROTINEX was adopted by Petitioner’s predecessors in 1957 and has
been continuously, extensively and uninterruptedly used for protein
supplements. Details of registrations as also the honors and awards earned
owing to sale of products under the mark PROTINEX have been furnished
in the petition. It is categorically stated in the petition that the impugned
mark PROTRILEX is deceptively and confusingly similar to the mark
PROTINEX and is being used dishonestly by Respondent No. 1 to establish
an association with the Petitioner as also to encash on its formidable
reputation garnered over several decades. Each of these averments are
uncontroverted as Respondent No. 1 has consciously chosen to remain away
from these proceedings despite service.
10. It is significant to note that CS (COMM) 905/2024 was filed by the
Petitioner herein against several Defendants, one of which was Respondent
No. 1 herein, seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendants
No. 1 to 3 from using the mark PROTEX and Defendants No.4 to 6 therein
from using the mark PROTRILEX as being deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s
registered mark PROTINEX. The suit has been decreed on 08.05.2026 and
some of the observations, as rightly flagged by counsel for the Petitioner are
relevant for this case. Relying on the judgment in the case of Under Armour
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:26.05.2026
10:47:27
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025 Page 5 of 6

Inc. v. Anish Agarwal and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784 , on initial
interest confusion, this Court held that Petitioner had acquired substantial
goodwill and reputation in the concerned product and that the adoption of
the mark PROTRILEX was dishonest since the mark was deceptively
similar to PROTINEX, structurally, visually and phonetically and there was
a clear likelihood of confusion and association in the minds of members of
trade and public that Defendants’ product bearing impugned marks originate
from or are connected with the Petitioner. In light of this finding,
registration of the mark is in the teeth of Section 11(1)(b) of the 1999 Act
and cannot be sustained. Counsel for Petitioner has rightly urged that since
the mark PROTRILEX is deceptively similar to PROTINEX and is being
infringed by Respondent No. 1 as also that she is passing off her goods as
those of the Petitioner, there is no gainsaying that Petitioner is the ‘person
aggrieved’ under Section 57(2) of the 1999 Act.
11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, cancelling the registration
granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 for the mark PROTRILEX under
registration no. 4566089 in Class 05. Respondent No. 2 is directed to rectify
the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks from today to maintain its
purity.
12. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.



JYOTI SINGH, J
MAY 20, 2026
S.Sharma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:26.05.2026
10:47:27
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 85/2025 Page 6 of 6