An unopposed trademark suit was decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 after interim relief was fully implemented.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants alleging that Defendant No. 1 marketed and sold an Ayurvedic weight-management medicine called “Medanta Capsule” using the mark “MEDANTA”.

On 14 November 2024, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from dealing in goods or services under “MEDANTA” or any mark likely to infringe the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks.

The listing-platform defendants complied with the injunction and were deleted from the suit.

Although served on 28 April 2025, Defendant No. 1 did not appear or file a written statement; the right to file one was closed on 29 August 2025.

After the Court directed Defendant No. 1 to correct its website, that direction was also complied with.

The plaintiffs then sought judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

1. Whether, in light of Defendant No. 1’s failure to appear or file a written statement and the circumstances on record, the suit should be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs claimed in prayers (a) to (c), and what order should follow regarding prayer (d).

The Court considered the plaintiffs’ application under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which permits the Court, where a defendant fails to present a written statement as required, to pronounce judgment or make such order in relation to the suit as it considers appropriate.

The Court also took account of the interim injunction previously granted on the basis that the plaintiffs were registered proprietors of “MEDANTA” and that use of the mark by the defendants was likely to cause confusion; it noted the heightened scrutiny applicable to medicinal products because of the public interest involved.

The judgment does not cite any precedent or identify any additional statutory provision.

Defendant No. 1 had been served but neither appeared nor filed a written statement, and its right to do so had been closed.

The Court also noted that the interim injunction had been complied with, including the later direction to correct the defendant’s website, and that there appeared to be no continuing infringement.

Because the relief had effectively been availed of and the sole contesting defendant had not opposed the relief sought, the Court considered it appropriate to decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

Prayer (d), having been withdrawn, was dismissed.

The suit and pending applications were disposed of, and a decree sheet was directed to be drawn.