Recently, the Delhi High Court granted a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd., restraining multiple defendants from using deceptively similar marks such as “ORSI,” “ERSI,” and “ElectroORS” for electrolyte-based rehydration products. The Court held that the defendants’ actions constituted a clear case of trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff’s well-known brand “Electral.” In a significant move, the Court also awarded total damages amounting to ₹1,22,56,864, while observing that such willful violations demanded a strong deterrent response.
Brief Facts:
Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. acquired rights to the ORSL mark in 2014 and continued marketing flavored electrolyte beverages across India under the brand. Trouble began when the company discovered that certain entities were selling strikingly similar products under the names ‘ORSI’, ‘ERSI’, and ‘ElectroORS’. Despite an interim injunction passed in December 2023, the infringing products reportedly remained on shelves.
The plaintiff moved the High Court seeking a permanent injunction, claiming wholesale copying of packaging, font, colour scheme, and fruit device images, creating a mirror image of the ORSL brand to confuse customers and piggyback on its goodwill.
Contentions of the Petiitoner:
The plaintiff argued that the defendants had not just copied the name, but the entire look and feel of ORSL’s packaging. With red-and-white colour schemes, identical layout, and even use of the same fruit symbols, the similarities were not just confusing, they were calculated. The petitioner also asserted that the infringing products were sold via interactive websites accessible in Delhi, thus establishing jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the defendants denied wrongdoing, stating it merely procured blended beverages from other parties. Other defendants distanced themselves, claiming they were only contract manufacturers or distributors unaware of trademark issues or court orders. Some challenged the Court’s jurisdiction.
Observations of the Court:
The Court delivered a scathing analysis of the defendants’ conduct, stating, “The defendant no.1 has attempted to come as close as possible to the marks and packaging of the plaintiff. The misappropriation... is writ large.”
Applying the Triple Identity Test, the Court noted that the marks, goods, and target consumers were all the same, making the risk of confusion not just probable, but inevitable. Citing judgments like Heifer Project and South India Beverages, the Court underscored that even small changes in font or layout cannot whitewash a clear case of deceitful imitation.
Regarding jurisdiction, the Court reaffirmed its prior ruling that e-commerce sales accessible in Delhi satisfy territorial jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act.
The clinching blow came from Local Commissioner reports which revealed that infringing goods were still being manufactured and sold, after the injunction was passed. This, the Court held, was a clear case of contempt and wilful violation.
The decision of the Court:
The High Court passed a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining all the defendants from using the marks "ORSI", "ERSI", "ElectroORS", or any other deceptively similar variants to the plaintiff’s registered trademark “Electral.”
In terms of monetary relief, the Court awarded ₹52,56,864 as compensatory damages against Defendant No. 1, in recognition of the infringement and loss caused to the plaintiff. Additionally, considering the wilful and egregious nature of the violation, the Court awarded ₹50,00,000 as punitive damages against Defendant No. 1, aimed at serving as a deterrent against future misconduct.
Further, the Court awarded ₹15,00,000 as damages against Defendants 2 to 5, ₹1,00,000 against Defendant No. 6, and ₹1,50,000 each against Defendants 7 and 8.
The total quantum of damages awarded stood at ₹1,22,56,864. The Court also directed the plaintiff to file its bill of costs within a period of two months, as per Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The same shall be placed before the Taxing Officer for computation of litigation expenses, which shall be recoverable from Defendant No. 1.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed in the above terms, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Case Title: Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 801/2023 & I.A. 1741/2024, I.A. 31225/2024, I.A. 31226/2024, I.A. 1880/2025
Coram: Justice Mini Pushkarna
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Nancy Roy, Lalit Alley
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Kishore Babu Manne
Picture Source :
