Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. vs M/S Rockwell Pharmaceuticals & Ors.

$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
+ CS(COMM) 905/2024
DANONE ASIA PACIFIC HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Krishna V.S., Advocate.
versus
M/S ROCKWELL PHARMACEUTICALS & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( ORAL )
I.A. 12915/2026
1. This Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order
XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) seeking Summary
Judgment against Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
2. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia , seeking
permanent injunction retraining the Defendants from infringement of the
Plaintiff’s Trade Mark and passing off.
3. Vide order dated 16.10.2024, this Court granted injunction restraining
Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from using the Mark ‘PROTEX’ (“ Impugned Mark
No. 1 ”), and Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 from using the Mark ‘PROTRILEX’
(“ Impugned Mark No. 2 ”), or any other Mark that is deceptively similar to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 1 of 11

the Plaintiff’s registered Mark ‘PROTINEX’ (‘ Plaintiff’s Mark ’). Further,
the Court issued summons to the Defendants in the present Suit.
4. Vide order dated 28.02.2025, this Court issued fresh summons to the
Defendants through all permissible modes, upon the Plaintiff taking
requisite steps.
5. Vide order dated 08.08.2025, the learned Joint Registrar observed that
the affidavit of service dated 21.04.2025 records that service of summons on
Defendant No. 1 had been effected on 19.04.2025, and another affidavit of
service dated 10.03.2025 records that Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 were served
on 01.03.2025. Further, it was also observed that vide order dated
20.02.2025, it was recorded that Defendant No. 3 and 4 were served on
28.10.2024.
6. Vide order dated 14.10.2025, the learned Joint Registrar allowed I.A.
No. 25624/2025 filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) of
the CPC, thereby deleting Defendant No. 2 from the array of Parties. It was
further recorded that Defendant No. 1 was served with summons on
19.04.2025, Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 on 28.10.2024 and Defendant Nos. 5
and 6 on 01.03.2025. It was also observed that since the maximum
permissible period to file the Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.
1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had expired, their right to file their Written Statement stood
closed.
7. Vide order dated 09.12.2025, this Court observed that none had
appeared on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and, therefore, the
said Defendants were proceeded ex-parte .
8. Vide order dated 27.04.2026, it was recorded that the learned Counsel
for the Plaintiff had sought time to file an appropriate application seeking
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 2 of 11

summary judgment, which was granted by the Court. Accordingly, the
present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff.
9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff advanced the following
submissions:
9.1. The Plaintiff is a part of the Danone Group of Companies,
which have their origin from the year 1896. Currently, the
Danone Group conducts business in over 120 countries and is
one of the world’s foremost players in the specialized nutrition
market as well as in the dairy and plant-based products market.
9.2. The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the Plaintiff’s Mark,
which has continuously been used by the Plaintiff and its
predecessors in India since 1957. The Plaintiff also possesses
statutory rights for the exclusive use of the Plaintiff’s Mark
owing to the registration obtained by the Plaintiff in relevant
Classes, the details of which are as under:
Sl. No. Trademark Application
No.
Class Date of
Application
Status Valid
upto
1. PROTINEX
(word)
178482 05 15.02.1957 Registered 15.02.2026
2. PROTINEX
(word)
275091 30 20.09.1971 Registered 20.09.2026
3. PROTINEX
(word)
1274688 29 24.03.2004 Registered 24.03.2034
4. PROTINEX
(word)
1467423 29 06.07.2006 Registered 06.07.2026
5. PROTINEX
(word)
1467424 30 06.07.2006 Registered 06.07.2026
6. PROTINEX
(word)
1472293 05 24.07.2006 Registered 24.07.2026
7. PROTINEX 1472292 30 24.07.2006 Registered 24.07.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 3 of 11

(word)
8. PROTINEX
BYTES (word)
3577275 05 &
30
23.06.2017 Registered 23.06.2027
9.
5684347 05 16.11.2022 Registered 16.11.2032
10.
5684345 05 16.11.2022 Registered 16.11.2032
11.
5684346 05 16.11.2022 Pending
Registration
-
12.
5684348 05 16.11.2022 Registered 16.11.2032
9.3. The Plaintiff’s product bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark is a
scientifically formulated protein supplement developed to
address widespread protein deficiency and is marketed in
multiple variants, catering to different age groups and
nutritional needs. Due to its continued and sustained presence,
consistent promotional efforts and extensive product portfolio,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 4 of 11

the brand has acquired significant recognition amongst
consumers and healthcare professionals in India.
9.4. The products bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark are extensively
manufactured by the Plaintiff, which is reflected in the table
below:
Year No. of Packs Quantity (in
Metric Tons)
2009 5,427,324 1,261
2010 5,712,972 1,327
2011 6,013,654 1,397
2012 6,681,837 1,552
2013 7,424,263 1,725
2014 8,666,364 1,768
2015 9,949,636 2,371
2016 9,561,453 2,676
2017 11,526,831 3,104
2018 11,133,492 3,128
2019 9,496,712 2,538
9.5. The Plaintiff has consistently promoted and expanded the
Plaintiff’s Mark through successful product launches and
continuous innovation tailored according to the evolving
consumer requirements. Multiple products launched under the
Plaintiff’s Mark have received industry recognition and awards
from various reputed organizations, thereby evidencing the
strong market presence and goodwill of the Plaintiff’s products
bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark.
9.6. The Plaintiff’s products bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark have
achieved significant commercial success. The Plaintiff has
invested considerably in advertising, publicity, marketing
initiatives which include digital outreach, trade journal
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 5 of 11

coverage, dedicated websites and celebrity endorsements,
thereby significantly enhancing the goodwill associated with
the Plaintiff’s Mark and its products sold thereunder.
9.7. In the month of September 2024, the Plaintiff came across the
products bearing Impugned Mark No. 1. Upon examination of
the products bearing Impugned Mark No. 1, the Plaintiff came
to know that the said products were being marketed by
Defendant No. 1 and were manufactured by Defendant No. 4.
9.8. Thereafter, the Plaintiff conducted an investigation which
revealed that Defendant No. 1 through interconnected
proprietorship entities, had been marketing nutritional products
bearing the Impugned Marks in various markets for several
years. Such products were earlier manufactured by Defendant
Nos. 4 to 6 and were being manufactured at a facility set up by
Defendant No. 1 at the time of the institution of the Suit.
Defendant No. 4, whose directors are Defendant Nos. 5 and 6,
manufactures and sells products bearing Impugned Mark No. 2
through online platforms and also its own website.
9.9. The Plaintiff had earlier instituted CS(COMM) No. 306/2020
before this Court against entities owned / operated by
Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 for the use of a deceptively similar Mark
‘PROTILEX’ in relation to identical goods as that of the
Plaintiff’s. In the said proceedings, a decree dated 07.04.2022
was issued pursuant to a settlement agreement dated
06.09.2021, wherein the said Defendants agreed to bind
themselves to be restrained from infringing the Plaintiff’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 6 of 11

Mark. Therefore, the continuous infringing acts of the said
Defendants in the present Suit are in violation of the said decree
issued by the Court.
9.10. The Defendants have dishonestly adopted and used the
Impugned Marks, which are phonetically and deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, in relation to identical goods,
i.e., protein supplements. Such adoption has been made by the
Defendants with full knowledge of the Plaintiff’s rights in the
Plaintiff’s Mark.
9.11. The minor and cosmetic variations introduced by the
Defendants in the Impugned Marks do not mitigate the
likelihood of confusion and clearly demonstrates a mala fide
intent to ride upon the goodwill and reputation associated with
the Plaintiff’s Mark. A comparison of the Plaintiff’s Mark and
the Impugned Marks is as under:
PLAINTIFF’S MARK IMPUGNED MARKS
PROTI NE X PROT E X
Used by Proprietor of Defendant
Nos. 1 to 3
PROTI NE X PROT R I L EX
Used by Defendant Nos. 4 to 6
9.12. In the Impugned Marks, the Defendants have merely replaced
the highlighted letters as evident from the table above, thereby
clearly dishonestly adopting phonetically, structurally and
visually similar / identical Marks. Therefore, there is a clearly
likelihood of confusion amongst consumers that there is an
association between the Defendants’ goods and the Plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 7 of 11

9.13. There is no real prospect of the Defendants successfully
defending their claims. The Plaintiff has taken effective steps to
ensure service of summons upon the Defendants, the status of
which is as under:
S. No. Defendant Date of receipt of summons
1) Defendant No.1 19.04.2025
2) Defendant No.3 28.10.2024
3) Defendant No.4 28.10.2024
4) Defendant No.5 01.03.2025
5) Defendant No.6 01.03.2025
9.14. Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have failed to file their Written
Statements within the statutorily prescribed time limit despite
due service. Therefore, their right to file the Written Statement
stood forfeited due to the expiry of the prescribed period, which
was recorded by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025.
9.15. The issues arising in the present Suit are capable of
adjudication solely on the basis of undisputed documentary
evidence that have already been placed on record, evidencing
long and continuous use in addition to the registration of the
Plaintiff’s Mark. Therefore, proceeding to trial in such
circumstances would only result in unwarranted delay in the
present Suit.
10. In the present case, Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have failed to
enter appearance or raise any defence despite due service of summons, and
their right to file written statements stands closed in terms of the order dated
14.10.2025. By the same order, Defendant No. 2 was deleted from the array
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 8 of 11

of parties. Thereafter, vide order dated 09.12.2025, this Court recorded that
none appeared on behalf of the aforesaid Defendants and, accordingly, they
were proceeded against ex parte .
11. In Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed , 2016 SCC OnLine Del
6717, this Court observed as under:
“ 20. The court is mindful of the fact that in such a situation where
the defendant chooses to stay away from the court proceedings, he
should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion. Any
view to the contrary would result in a situation where a compliant
defendant who appears in court pursuant to summons being issued,
participates in the proceedings and submits his account books, etc.,
for assessment of damages, would end up on a worse footing, vis-a-
vis a defendant who chooses to conveniently stay away after being
served with the summons in the suit. That was certainly not the
intention of the Statute. Section 135(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999
provides that relief that may be granted in any suit for infringement
of or for passing off includes injunction and at the option of the
plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits. The plaintiffs in
the present case have opted for claiming damages and have
established beyond doubt that they have suffered damages on
account of the conduct of the defendants which are a result of
infringement of their trademark and copyright. ”
12. In the facts of the present case, no useful purpose would be served by
directing the matter to proceed to trial, particularly when no defence has
been raised on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the documentary material
already placed on record, the said Defendants do not appear to have any real
prospect of successfully defending the present Suit.
13. In Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal , 2025 SCC OnLine Del
3784, the Division Bench of this Court held that where a customer, even for
a brief period, associates the impugned marks with the plaintiff’s marks,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 9 of 11

infringement would stand attracted. It was further held that the Initial
Interest Confusion Test proceeds on the principle that even if confusion is
caused only at the initial stage, the same is sufficient to satisfy the
requirement of deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999.
14. On the basis of the documents placed on record, it is evident that the
Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Plaintiff’s Mark and has acquired
substantial goodwill and reputation in respect of the products sold
thereunder. A comparison of the Plaintiff’s Mark with the Impugned Marks,
as set out hereinabove, clearly demonstrates that, the Defendants have
merely omitted the letters ‘IN’ from the Plaintiff’s Mark ‘PROTINEX’ to
devise Impugned Mark No. 1, namely ‘PROTEX’; and by adding the letter
‘R’ and substituting the letter ‘N’ in the Plaintiff’s Mark with the letter ‘L’,
the Defendants have devised Impugned Mark No. 2.
15. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Marks are
deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, having regard to the evident
structural, visual and phonetic similarity between the competing marks.
There is, therefore, a clear likelihood of confusion and association in the
minds of members of the trade and the public that the Defendants’ products
bearing the Impugned Marks originate from, or are connected with, the
Plaintiff.
16. In view of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind the dishonest adoption
and use by the Defendants of the Impugned Marks, which are deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, with a view to deriving unfair advantage
from and riding upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, the present
Application for passing Summary Judgement deserves to be allowed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 10 of 11

17. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 905/2024
18. In view of the order passed in I.A. 12915/2026, the present Suit is
decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6
in terms of the prayers contained in Paragraph No. 125(a) to (e) of the Suit.
19. Let the Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.
20. The present Suit, along with pending Application(s), if any, stands
disposed of.
21. The next date of 20.05.2026 stands cancelled.
TEJAS KARIA, J
MAY 8, 2026 / sms
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:14.05.2026
13:22:26
CS(COMM) 905/2024 Page 11 of 11