Jagdish Dahyalal Patel vs Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited

$~33

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision : 21.07.2026

+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 CM APPL. 45867/2026 CM APPL.
45868/2026 CM APPL. 45869/2026 CM APPL. 45870/2026

JAGDISH DAHYALAL PATEL .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Prashansa
Singh, Mr Rajat Jain, Mr. Rohit
Pradhan and Ms. Mahima
Chanchalani, Advs.

versus

ANCHOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Kunal
Vats, Mr. Rajit Ghosh, Mr. Sreejan
Pankaj, Ms. Aastha Verma, Mr. Ritik
Raghuwanshi and Ms. Rishika
Aggarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. ( ORAL )

1. The present appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] and Section
13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’] read with
Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 impugning the ex-parte ad-
interim injunction order dated 26.05.2026 [‘impugned order’] passed by the


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 1 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

learned Single Judge in CS(COMM) 599/2026 titled ‘Anchor Consumer
Products private limited v. Jagdish Dahyalal Patel’ restraining the
Appellant herein from using the mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ [‘impugned mark’]
or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Respondent’s
registered trademark ‘DYNA’.
2. Respondent in May, 2026 instituted a commercial suit against
Appellant on the assertion that Appellant’s impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’, used for air fresheners, is deceptively similar to the
Respondent’s registered mark ‘DYNA’, used for soaps and other personal
care products since the year 1999.
3. Respondent, through the commercial suit, prayed for an ex-parte ad-
interim injunction and an appointment of a Local Commissioner, before the
learned Single Judge. The said prayers were granted by the learned Single
Judge vide impugned order dated 26.05.2026 after recording submissions of
the Respondent.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANT
4. Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel for the Appellant states that, in the
plaint, the Respondent withheld from the learned Single Judge the material
fact that the Appellant has been selling air fresheners using the impugned
mark ‘DYNAFRESH’, at least since June 2021, and the Respondent has
built a false narrative, to allege that the adoption of the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’ by the Appellant is recent i.e., in May 2026.
4.1 He states that the Respondent had access to the GST paid tax invoices
[‘invoices’] of the Appellant, evidencing use since June 2021, as 45 GST


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 2 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

paid tax invoices have been filed by the Appellant with its user-based
trademark application no. 6978521 for ‘DYNAFRESH’ [label] in the
relevant Class 3, before the Trade Marks Registry.
He states that the said 45 GST paid tax invoices ought to have been
filed by the Respondent along with the plaint, so that the learned Single
Judge would have had the knowledge of the use of the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’ by the Appellant since June 2021 and it may have
persuaded the learned Single Judge to not grant an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction in favour of the Respondent.
He states that withholding the said invoices is suppression and not
only should the impugned order be vacated but the application I.A. No.
15112/2026 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction, itself be dismissed. He
1
refers to the judgments of Amar Singh v. Union of India and Others ,
Barbara Taylor Bradford and Anr. v. Sahara Media Entertainment
2
Ltd. and Ors. , Oswal Fats and Oils Limited v. Additional
3
Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Ors. .
4.2 He states that the Appellant was entitled to a hearing before passing of
the impugned order considering that it had been using the impugned mark
since the year 2021 and not recently in 2026, as averred in the plaint. He
relies upon the order of the coordinate Bench in Dabur India Limited v.
4
Emami Limited .
4.3 He states that he has already filed an application i.e., I.A No.

1
(2011) 7 SCC 69, at paragraph 53 to 65
2
2003 SCC OnLine Cal 323, at paragraph 213 to 225
3
(2010) 4 SCC 728, at paragraph 20
4
2023 SCC OnLine Del 5824, at paragraph 11



Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 3 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

16849/2026 seeking recall of the impugned order, on which notice has been
issued directing parties to complete pleadings and the said application is
listed for hearing on 10.08.2026.
He, however, states on instructions that Appellant does not wish to
pursue the said application and undertakes to withdraw the same. He
contends that the Appellant wishes to pursue the present appeal as its
remedy against the impugned order.
5. No other plea was raised or pressed during arguments by the learned
counsel for the Appellant.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
6. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent submits that, in the plaint, Respondent had made a full
disclosure of the Appellant’s first trademark application no. 5586219 dated
27.08.2022 for the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ in Class 3 claiming user
since 29.02.2020.
She states that the said trademark application was refused by the
Registrar of Trademarks [‘Registrar’] vide reasoned order dated 29.07.2024.
She states that the said application was rejected on two grounds i.e., (i) that
the impugned mark was in conflict with the Respondent’s mark ‘DYNA’
registered vide trademark application no. 1393517 in the same Class 3; and
(ii) on the finding that the Appellant’s user claim of 29.02.2020 was held to
be not proved despite opportunities, leading the Registrar to conclude that
the Appellant had no bona fide adoption of the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’. She states that the said order dated 29.07.2024 was not
challenged by the Appellant and it has attained finality.


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 4 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

6.1. She states that the Appellant is estopped by the said order dated
29.07.2024 dismissing trademark application no. 5586219 for the impugned
mark ‘DYNAFRESH’, from filing the subsequent trademark application no.
6978521, again, for the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’.
6.2. She states that in view of the specific rejection of the user claim in
order dated 29.07.2024, the Respondent was not liable to refer to the 45
GST paid tax invoices, relied upon by the Appellant, before the Registrar in
support of trademark application no. 6978521. She states that the said
application is still at the formalities check pass stage before the Registrar
and veracity of the said invoices has not been examined by the Registrar.
6.3. She states that, in view of the order dated 29.07.2024, which records
that the Appellant failed to produce documents to support its user claim of
29.02.2020 despite several opportunities, makes the invoices, now relied
upon, suspect. She states that the Appellant has not filed the order dated
29.07.2024, with the present appeal. She has handed over a copy of the said
order dated 29.07.2024 to the Court.
6.4. She states that the fact that a second trademark application no.
6978521 dated 26.04.2025 on the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ was filed
by the Appellant, was duly disclosed as the status of the said application was
filed with the plaint paper-book.
6.5. She states that the Respondent had relied upon additional documents
at the hearing dated 26.05.2026 evidencing the listing of the Appellant’s
product on the e-commerce website of Amazon in the year 2021, 2022 and


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 5 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

2025. She states that, however, as per some of the listings, the Appellant’s
products are currently unavailable on the e-commerce platform. She states
that the said documents form part of the suit record.
6.6. She states that Appellant cannot maintain both, its application for
recall of the impugned order being I.A No. 16849/2026 as well as the
present appeal, it must elect its remedy. She relies upon the judgment of
Supreme Court in Rajendra (dead) v. Chandadevi and Sons (P) Ltd. Co.
5 6
and Ors. and Rekha Mukherjee v. Ashis Kumar Das and Ors. .

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
7. We take on record the submission of the learned counsel for the
Appellant that the Appellant does not wish to pursue I.A. No. 16849/2026
and wishes to pursue the present appeal against the impugned order dated
26.05.2026. This answers the objection on maintainability raised by the
Respondent. Accordingly, I.A. 16849/2026 in CS(COMM) 599/2026 is
hereby dismissed as withdrawn and we accordingly proceed to decide the
present appeal.
8. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has granted the ex-
parte ad-interim injunction after returning prima facie findings on the
existence of substantial goodwill and immense reputation of the Respondent
in its registered mark ‘DYNA’ and on the finding that the Appellant’s
adoption of the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ is not bona fide. Learned
Single Judge has also opined that the rival marks are deceptively similar and

5
(2005) 12 SCC 335
6
(2005) 3 SCC 427



Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 6 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

therefore likely to create confusion amongst the public. Learned Single
Judge has held that in these facts the balance of convenience is in favour of
the Respondent, who will suffer irreparable injury if injunction is not
granted.
9. The Appellant has during arguments, however, challenged the
impugned order only on the ground of alleged suppression, by the
Respondent, of not filing, along with the plaint, the 45 GST paid tax
invoices filed by the Appellant, with its second trademark application no.
6978521 by the Appellant, evidencing purported use of the impugned mark
since 05.06.2021. No arguments were addressed by the Appellant, to the
findings on merits of the Respondent’s claim which forms the basis of the
grant of ad-interim injunction.
10. Thus, before we evaluate the weight of the solitary ground of the
alleged suppression raised by the Appellant in the present appeal, for
seeking setting aside of the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to enlist
the findings returned on merits and reasons recorded by the learned Single
Judge for granting the ad-interim injunction vide the impugned order. The
findings can be summarized as under:
(I) Learned Single Judge, at paragraph 31 of the impugned order,
examined the merits of the claims of the Respondent on the anvil
of passing off.
(II) Learned Single Judge examined and compared the rival marks
visually. The same is tabulated, as in the impugned order, as under:



Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 7 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

Mark of the Respondent/Plaintiff Mark of the Appellant/Defendant
DYNA DYNAFRESH








Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 8 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

(III) Upon a visual comparison of the rival marks, at paragraph 32 of
the impugned order, the learned Single Judge concluded that the
Appellant is prominently using the mark ‘DYNA’ in its trade dress
while the word ‘FRESH’ appears in smaller size, in respect of
certain products. It also observed that the word ‘FRESH’ has been
written in a stylized manner with a different font and therefore
does not appear to be a part of the entire trademark, on the trade
dress. Learned Single Judge concluded, thus it is the mark
‘DYNA’ as it appears on the Appellant’s product which catches
the eye of the viewer.
The colour scheme of the trade dress of the Appellant, when
compared with the colour scheme of the Respondent’s products
and packaging appears to be deceptively similar.
Since the Respondent itself uses its mark ‘DYNA’ with words
such as “Premium Beauty” and “Natural” as subscript on its


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 9 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

products, the Appellant’s impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ is
likely to give an impression of a close association or deceptive
similarity.
(IV) Upon perusal of the scale of advertisements, celebrity
endorsements undertaken by the Respondent to promote its mark
‘DYNA’, and volume of sales between FY 2005-2006 and FY
2024-2025, the learned Single Judge concluded that the
Respondent has earned substantial goodwill and immense
reputation for its products sold under the mark ‘DYNA’. It
concluded that the endorsements lend credence to the assertion of
quality and popularity of the products sold by the Respondent.
(V) Upon perusal of the contents of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed
by the Registrar refusing the Appellant’s first trademark
application no. 5586219 for the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’
in Class 3, learned Single Judge at paragraph 37 and 38 of the
impugned order, concluded that the Appellant’s adoption of the
impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ despite rejection, by the
Registrar, is not bona fide.
(VI) After taking into consideration, the commonality of the trade
channels and the consumers, learned Single Judge at paragraph 39
of the impugned order concluded that due to deceptive similarity
of the rival marks, the consumer with average intelligence and
imperfect recollection will get deceived. It held that the use of the
impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ shall cause confusion and
deception in the minds of the general public.


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 10 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

(VII) Learned Single Judge at paragraph 40 and 41 of the impugned
order, thus concluded that Respondent had firmly established a
prima facie case of passing off and concluded that the deceptive
similarity shall cause damage to the financial interest of the
Respondent and thus held that the balance of convenience is in
favour of the Respondent and irreparable injury will be caused to
the Respondent. And, consequently issued the ex-parte ad-interim
injunction, at paragraph 42 of the impugned order.
11. The Appellant, during arguments, has not challenged the findings of
the learned Single Judge on the ground of deceptive similarity of the rival
marks ‘DYNA’ and ‘DYNAFRESH’. It has not challenged the findings
returned on substantial goodwill and immense reputation of the
Respondent’s mark ‘DYNA’ and most importantly, it has not challenged the
finding of lack of bona fide adoption of the impugned mark, returned by the
learned Single Judge on the basis of the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by
the Registrar on Appellant’s first trademark application no. 5586219.
12. The Registrar’s order dated 29.07.2024 rejecting the Appellant’s user-
based first trademark application no. 5586219 dated 27.08.2022, claiming
user since 29.02.2020 is significant and, the relevant extract reads as under:
“Impugned mark “DYNAFRESH” is found phonetically and
visually similar to the cited conflicting mark “DYNA” vide
application No. 1393517 for applied specification of goods which is
also similar. Impugned mark is subsequent to the mark cited in the
examination report. Further, though the applicant has claimed
user since 29/02/2020 but has not provided/filed any substantive
documentary evidence to establish or even to corroborate the
said user. There is likelihood of confusion . No explanation by
applicant regarding adoption of the mark when similar mark


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 11 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

already on record.
It is well settled principle of law that the two words shall be
compared both visually and phonetically and then within the
context of the nature of the goods/services to which they apply as
well as the nature and kind of consumer base that is relevant for the
sale of such products/services.
User Claim : The applicant of impugned mark claimed to be user
since 29/02/2020. In view of the application, the Registrar of
Trademarks has opined that after given an ample opportunity the
applicant has not been honestly and continuously using the
trademark among the trade and public hence the applicant has no
bona fide adoption of the subject mark in respect of the applied
goods/services .
In view of the above, objection u/sec. 11 cannot be waived. Hence,
refused
After perusal of all the documents on record it is concluded that
applied mark is not registrable because of the reason stated as
above. Hence application no 5586219 cannot be accepted and
refused accordingly.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

13. The Registrar vide order dated 29.07.2024 refused acceptance of the
Appellant’s first trademark application no. 5586219 for the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’ on the specific ground that it is phonetically and visually
similar to the Respondent’s mark ‘DYNA’. The Registrar also recorded that
the purported user claim of 29.02.2020 was not proved by the Appellant
despite ample opportunities, leading to a conclusion that the Appellant is not
honestly and continuously using the mark for its goods; and a further
conclusion that the adoption of the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ by the
Appellant is also not bona fide.
14. It is a matter of record that the said order dated 29.07.2024, of the
Registrar has not been challenged by the Appellant. The Appellant had a
remedy to challenge the order dated 29.07.2024 by filing an appeal,


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 12 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

however, it elected not to challenge the said order and therefore, it has
attained finality. The Appellant is thus, bound by the findings in the said
order.
15. In our considered opinion, the finding returned by the learned Single
Judge, at paragraph 38 of the impugned order, on the basis of the order dated
29.07.2024 is unexceptional and apposite in the facts of this case. Paragraph
37 and 38 of the impugned order is reproduced below:
“37. That apart, vide the order dated 29.07.2024, The Registrar of Trade
Marks has refused acceptance of the application of the impugned mark
“DYNAFRESH” of the defendant in Class 3 on the ground that it is
phonetically and visually similar to the mark “DYNA” of the plaintiff
and has also disbelieved the user claimed since the year 2020 for lack
of any documentary evidence. The Registrar has also observed that the
mark shall cause confusion.
38. Having regard to the above, it appears that the adoption of the mark
“DYNAFRESH” by the defendant despite rejection of its application in
Class 3 for manufacture and sale of goods under Class 3 is not bona
fide.”
16. In this appeal, the Appellant has not challenged the said findings of
the learned Single Judge based on the order dated 29.07.2024.
17. In the present appeal, during arguments the Appellant’s sole plea is
the non-disclosure, by the Respondent, of the 45 GST paid tax invoices filed
by the Appellant with its second trademark application 6978521 for the
impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ in Class 3 on 26.04.2025 with the earliest
invoice of 05.06.2021, which as per Appellant shows its alleged use of the
impugned mark since the year 2021 and not the year 2026 as narrated by the
Respondent, in the plaint.
We therefore proceed to consider this plea of the Appellant and


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 13 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

weigh, whether this fact of 45 tax paid invoices was a material fact, which
ought to have been filed/disclosed by the Respondent with its plaint and
determine if these invoices had been filed, would it have changed the
opinion of the learned Single Judge and persuaded the Court to not pass the
impugned order.
18. We answer this issue raised by the Appellant in negative for the
reasons set out hereinafter.
19. In our considered opinion, the order of the Registrar dated 29.07.2024
refusing the Appellant’s first trademark application, which records that the
Appellant failed to produce documents to support its user claim since
29.02.2020, despite ample opportunities, leading to a conclusive finding that
the user claim and adoption of the impugned mark by the Appellant was not
bona fide, is an order of the quasi-judicial authority. The findings in this
order dated 29.07.2024, at prima facie stage eclipses the 45 GST paid tax
invoices relied upon by the Appellant with its second trademark application
no. 6978521 to setup a plea of user since 05.06.2021.
Moreover, the finding of the Registrar in its order dated 29.07.2024
that the Appellant’s use of the impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ is in conflict
with Respondent’s registered mark ‘DYNA’ and is likely to create confusion
amongst the public, is unaffected by the existence of the 45 GST paid tax
invoices, and this finding of the Registrar is by itself sufficient for the
learned Single Judge to injunct the Appellant’s continuing use of the
impugned mark.
20. Upon a query from the Court, learned counsel for the Appellant


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 14 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

clarifies that the factum of the Registrar’s order dated 29.07.2024 dismissing
its earlier trademark application no. 5586219 for the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’ has not been disclosed by the Appellant in its second
trademark application no. 6978521 filed for the same impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’, before the Registrar. The reason for non-disclosure of the
said order is not forthcoming from the counsel.
This Court fails to understand, the legal basis on which the Appellant
can maintain a second trademark application for the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’ when its earlier trademark application has been dismissed
on merits including on the ground that it is in conflict with the Respondent’s
registered mark ‘DYNA’. The Appellant’s second trademark application no.
6978521 is ex-facie not bona fide for failing to disclose the order dated
29.07.2024 and is infact an illegal attempt to overreach the order dated
29.07.2024. The Appellant’s second trademark application no. 6978521 is
liable to be held to be barred in law due to the findings, on merits, in view of
the Registrar’s order dated 29.07.2024 on the doctrine of estoppel.
21. In fact, even in the present appeal, the Appellant has, in the list of
dates and synopsis, while pleading that its first trademark application no.
5586219 has been refused by the Registrar, has pleaded that it was refused
for want of proof of user claim. However, there is no disclosure that the said
application was primarily also refused by the Registrar on the ground that it
was in conflict with the Respondent’s registered mark ‘DYNA’. The
Appellant has not annexed the order dated 29.07.2024 with this appeal.
While the Appellant seeks to wish away the existence of the order dated
29.07.2024, the said order, having been passed by a quasi-judicial authority,


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 15 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

continues to subsist and strictly binds the Appellant and makes its use of the
impugned mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ not bona fide.
22. There can be no dispute with the legal proposition that a plaintiff is
7
obliged to disclose all material facts to the Court in its plaint and more so
when it seeks an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant.
However, in the facts of this case, we are unable to agree with the Appellant
that there was any suppression of material facts by the Respondent in the
plaint so as to merit vacation of the impugned order and/or the dismissal of
the interlocutory application.
The 45 GST paid tax invoices filed by the Appellant to show
purported user since 05.06.2021, cannot overcome the finding of no user in
the Registrar’s order dated 29.07.2024. The said invoices would not have
justified the adoption and continued use of the impugned mark
‘DYNAFRESH’, by the Appellant, given the findings on deceptive
similarity with the Respondent’s mark ‘DYNA’, by both the Registrar in its
order dated 29.07.2024 and the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
We also take note that the Respondent had by way of its additional
documents filed under the cover of 26.05.2026 disclosed to the learned
Single Judge the listings of the products of the Appellant on the e-commerce
website of Amazon, since 2021. Thus, the learned Single Judge was aware
about the attempted use of the impugned mark since 2021.
23. In our considered opinion, the detailed reasons recorded by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order justifies grant of the ex-parte ad-

7
Order VI Rule 2 CPC


Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 16 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45

interim injunction in favour of the Respondent and requires no interference.
24. We therefore find no merit in the present appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.
25. I.A. No. 16849/2026 filed in CS(COMM) 599/2026 by the Appellant
stands dismissed, as withdrawn. The Registry will place the copy of this
order before the learned Single Judge in the concerned suit.


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J



V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 21, 2026/ hp/IB



Signature Not Verified
FAO(OS) (COMM) 180/2026 Page 17 of 17


Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:27.07.2026 11:45