The plaintiff, a manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines, alleged that the defendant was unlawfully using a deceptively similar trademark, “Amrit Nayan Jyoti,” for its own Ayurvedic products, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff’s established brand, “Nayan Jyoti.” The lawsuit sought a permanent injunction, damages, and the destruction of the infringing products.
The plaintiff, a well-known figure in the Ayurvedic medicine industry, had coined and adopted the trademark “Nayan Jyoti” in 1990 for its products, primarily Ayurvedic eye drops. Over the years, the plaintiff extensively promoted the brand through advertisements, online sales, and word-of-mouth recommendations, making it a widely recognised trademark within the Ayurvedic sector. The plaintiff asserted that “Nayan Jyoti” had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill, qualifying as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The defendant, B.C. Hasaram & Sons, was engaged in manufacturing and marketing Ayurvedic products, including eye drops, under the name “Amrit Nayan Jyoti”. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had copied not only the name but also the trade dress, colour scheme, font style, and overall packaging of “Nayan Jyoti”, thereby misleading consumers into believing that “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” was associated with or endorsed by the plaintiff.
The dispute first arose in 2009 when the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was using “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” to market similar products. The plaintiff immediately issued a cease-and-desist notice and lodged a complaint with the Licensing Officer and Director of Ayurveda and Unani Services, Uttarakhand. Following the complaint, the defendant’s license to manufacture “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” was revoked, and the defendant was ordered to stop using the mark. For several years, the defendant complied with the directive. However, in early 2023, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had resumed the sale of “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” through various online platforms, including www.haridwarayurved.com.
Upon learning of the infringement, the plaintiff filed a commercial suit under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking an injunction, damages amounting to INR 1 crore, and an order directing the destruction of all infringing goods. The plaintiff also conducted a test purchase through an investigator, who placed an online order for “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” and received the product in Delhi, thereby establishing the defendant’s ongoing infringing activities.
In response, the defendant initially contested the plaintiff’s claims, arguing that “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” was not deceptively similar to “Nayan Jyoti” and that the plaintiff had no exclusive right over the word “Nayan” or “Jyoti”. The defendant also contended that the plaintiff had failed to establish territorial jurisdiction in Delhi, as the plaintiff’s business was primarily based in Uttar Pradesh. However, the defendant failed to file a written statement within the stipulated period, leading to the striking off of its defence by the court on October 5, 2023. Subsequently, the defendant submitted an affidavit acknowledging the infringement and stating that it would not contest the relief sought by the plaintiff.
During the proceedings, the court-appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant’s premises and seize the infringing products. The Local Commissioner’s report confirmed that a large quantity of infringing goods – eye drops, packaging materials, stickers, and labels – bearing the “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” mark was found at the defendant’s premises. The seized goods were temporarily handed over to the defendant on superdari (custody bond), pending further court orders.
The court examined the evidence, including the plaintiff’s trademark registration certificates, sales invoices, advertising expenditures, and the Local Commissioner’s report. It concluded that the defendant had deliberately copied the plaintiff’s trademark with the intent to deceive consumers and benefit from the goodwill of “Nayan Jyoti”. The court observed that the defendant had not only used a similar name but had also replicated the plaintiff’s packaging, thereby increasing the likelihood of consumer confusion. Citing precedents such as Evergreen Sweet House vs Ever Green & Ors. and Sandisk LLC vs B-One Mobile & Ors., the court reiterated that a well-known trademark is entitled to strong legal protection, even against minor variations in spelling or design.
The court also rejected the defendant’s argument regarding jurisdiction, holding that since the infringing goods were sold through an interactive website accessible in Delhi and a test purchase had been successfully conducted in the city, the Delhi court had jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
In its final judgment, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “Amrit Nayan Jyoti” or any other deceptively similar name for Ayurvedic products. The defendant was directed to destroy all infringing goods within two months in the presence of a representative from the plaintiff’s side and to submit a compliance report within four weeks thereafter. The court also awarded damages of INR 48,35,610 to the plaintiff, based on the Local Commissioner’s report, which estimated the value of the defendant’s seized stock. Additionally, the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the suit.
The court’s ruling establishes the importance of brand identity in the Ayurvedic industry, where consumer trust and goodwill play a crucial role in product selection. The court has sent a strong message against trademark infringement and unfair competition by awarding substantial damages and mandating the destruction of infringing goods.