Ex-parte decree in a trademark/copyright/design infringement suit over the 'LAHORI ZEERA' beverage mark and trade-dress, where the defendants used a deceptively similar 'LAHOR ZEERA' mark. Defendants never appeared despite service; the court decreed permanent injunction and nominal damages of Rs. 50,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~22
ARCHIAN FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr. Nikhil Sonkar, Advs.
versus
M/S BALAJI FOODS AND BEVERAGES & ANR. .....Defendants Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
% 08.08.2025
CS(COMM) 503/2024 I.A. 16482/2022 (Under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC)
Factual Matrix
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 1 of 13
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
alcoholic beverages. Since its establishment in 2013, under the auspices of its predecessor, M/s Archian Foods, the plaintiff has built a notable reputation and brand identity with its wide array of products marketed under the ‘LAHORI’ formative trademarks. These formatives include wellknown variants such as ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, ‘LAHORI NIMBOO’, and ‘LAHORI KACHA AAM’, among others.
2.2 The rights in the aforenoted trademarks and trade-dress are derived by the plaintiff from M/s Archian Foods, under the Deed of Assignment dated 30.11.2021, whereunder Archian Foods transferred all their intellectual property to the plaintiff. Archian Foods adopted the trademark ‘LAHORI’ in the year 2013 in respect of ‘kulfi’ sold by them. Soon thereafter, in 2015, the plaintiff diversified its business operations under the trademark ‘LAHORI’ and launched a non-alcoholic flavoured beverage called ‘LAHORI ZEERA’.
2.3 Over the years, the plaintiff came up with several other products, including ‘LAHORI NIMBOO’, ‘LAIIORI KACIHA AAM’, ‘LAHORI SHIKANJI’, ‘LAHORI IMLI BANTA’, ‘LAHORI ROOH SHARBAT’, ‘LAHORI TADKA LITCHI’, ‘LAHORI TEEKHA GUAVA’ and ‘LAHORI ZEERA GOLGAPPA’. The trade-dress/ packaging/ label of plaintiff’s LAHORI products bear several unique features such as arrangement of content, get up, colour combination etc.
2.4 Through strategic branding and high-quality offerings, plaintiff has successfully positioned itself as a prominent player in the non-alcoholic beverage sector, achieving sales figures of approximately Rs. 432 crores1
1 As mentioned at paragraph 10.3 of the plaint.
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 2 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
as of March 2023.
2.5 It is averred in the plaint that, in the course of its business operations, the plaintiff has ensured that its products are not only of top quality but also adhere to global standards, being accredited by various regulatory bodies including FSSAI and ISO. The plaintiff has continuously innovated its product offerings, garnering significant consumer trust and goodwill. The distinctiveness of its branding, encapsulated primarily through its carefully crafted trade dresses and innovative bottle designs, solidifies its market presence. Plaintiff has taken proactive steps to protect its intellectual property, registering multiple trademarks and designs that are vital to its business equity.
2.6 The plaintiff has obtained registrations in respect of several of its LAHORI formative trademarks/trade-dress in Class 30 and 32, details of which are given at paragraph 10.4 of the plaint. Besides these registrations, the Plaintiff has also filed about 19 trademark applications for registration of stylized variants of LAHORI marks in class 32, inter alia in respect of non-alcoholic drinks and other beverages, which are currently pending. The details of said applications have been set out in paragraph 10.5 of the plaint.
2.7 It is averred that plaintiff’s trademark ‘LAHORI ZEERA’, which is amongst the most popular plaintiff’s brands/products. As noted above, this mark was adopted by the plaintiff in 2015. In 2022, plaintiff devised the
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 3 of 13
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
‘ / ’ for its goods.
2.8 The plaintiff has also obtained a copyright registration bearing No.
A-146655/2023 for the ‘LAHORI ZEERA’ label.
2.9 The plaintiff also got the bottle of the ‘LAHORI ZEERA’ product ‘’ registered under the Designs Act, 2000 bearing Design No. 352339-001. For reference the photograph set out at paragraph 4 of this application is
reproduced
2.10 The cause of action arises from the defendants' unlawful use of trademarks, including a deceptively similar mark, ‘LAHOR ZEERA’ and
an imitative trade dress ‘ / ’ that closely resembles
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 4 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
that of the plaintiff’s trademark/trade-dress ‘ / ’. Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff
3.1 He states that defendants (i.e., defendant nos. 1 & 2) were producing, marketing, and distributing non-alcoholic beverages including sodas, using a logo and branding that closely resembles the plaintiff's trademark/tradedress ‘LAHORI ZEERA’.
3.2 He states that the plaintiff filed the present suit on 29.05.2024, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition due to the defendants’ use of a mark/trade-dress ‘LAHOR ZEERA’, which is similar to the plaintiff's established trademark/trade-dress ‘LAHORI ZEERA’.
3.3 He states that on 31.05.2024, the plaintiff was granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, whereby the defendants were restrained from using,
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 5 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
manufacturing, advertising, or selling any products under the impugned mark/trade-dress ‘LAHOR ZEERA’, thereby preventing confusion among consumers.
3.4 He states that following this, a local commission was carried out on 10.06.2024, at the defendants' premises, where evidence of the infringing products bearing the impugned mark ‘LAHOR ZEERA’ were found. He states that the local commissioner interacted with a guard at the location, who identified the owner and informed that the factory is operational only when they get orders. A copy of the order dated 31.05.2024 along with the complete suit paper-book was served to the guard; additionally, the copy of the order dated 31.05.2024 was also served through WhatsApp messenger by the Local Commissioner to one Mr. Nishant Kumar who was identified as the proprietor of defendant no. 1.
3.5 He states that the summons in the captioned suit were also issued to the said defendants vide order dated 31.05.2024 and in compliance of the same, the plaintiff duly filed the process fee on 11.06.2024 vide diary no. 1792195/2024 for issuance of summons. He states that subsequently, the summons were issued by the Registry of this Court on 19.06.2024.
3.6 He states that attempts to serve summons to the defendants were initially unsuccessful due to address issues, prompting the plaintiff to seek Court’s permission on 24.10.2024, to serve them via email and WhatsApp, which was ultimately successful. He states that on 10.03.2025, the Court recorded that summons had been served but the defendants failed to respond, and the defendants right to file the written statement was closed.
3.7 He states that vide order dated 08.04.2025, the Court ordered the defendants be proceeded ex-parte and the interim injunction granted vide
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 6 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
order dated 31.05.2024 was confirmed till the final adjudication of the present suit.
3.9 He prays that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances; an exparte decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff herein in terms of the prayer clauses mentioned at paragraph 46 of the plaint.
Findings and Analysis
goods under the impugned mark/logo, packaging/label ‘ /
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 7 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
’, ‘LAHOR ZEERA’ or any other mark/logo/trade-dress/ packaging/ getup that may be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark
‘LAHORI ZEERA’ ‘ / ’ or any other mark/logo/ trade-dress/ packaging/ getup that may be identical or deceptively similar to
that would amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark nos. 3501393, 3260534, 4673809, 4673811, 4673808, 4673810 and 5582577, passing off of the impugned products as that of the plaintiff’s, and/or infringement of plaintiff's registered copyright bearing No. A- 146655/2023.
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 8 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
(J) recorded that the defendants were served with summons on 29.10.2024, however no appearance was marked on behalf of the defendants.
“ 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.— Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up.”
“3. The plaintiffs have given the address of the defendant of Bangalore, Karnataka. The affidavit of service dated 26.11.2012 has been filed by the Court Clerk of the Advocate for the plaintiffs to the effect that notice was sent to the defendant by Blue Dart Courier on 15.11.2012 and was delivered on
2 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 9 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
16.11.2012. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said affidavit emanating from the chamber of the Advocate for the plaintiffs and it has to be presumed that the shipment which has been reported to be delivered to the defendant contained the summons of the suit and notice of the application together with copies of the plaint, application and other documents etc. If it is discovered otherwise, of course the Advocate for the plaintiffs would be accountable. The defendant is thus proceeded against ex-parte.
4 . The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence. The counsel for the plaintiff’s states that the plaintiffs are willing to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.
5 . I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
years of business and marketing endeavors.
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 11 of 13
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
31.05.2024. Therefore, no decree of delivery up is being passed.
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 12 of 13
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
AUGUST 8, 2025/ mt/AM
3 2024:DHC:1230, at para 16, 17 and 19.
CS(COMM) 503/2024 Page 13 of 13
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 14:00:29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an ex-parte decree of permanent injunction could be passed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC against defendants who failed to appear despite service.
Whether the plaintiff was entitled to delivery up, rendition of accounts and damages.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.Relied on¶10
2013 SCC OnLine Del 508 · Who else cites this
Geneva Laboratories Ltd. v. Mr. Jay KhodiyarRelied on¶17
2024:DHC:1230
5 provisions across 5 enactments
M/S Balaji Foods and Beverages
Anr.
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
As recorded by the court registry
A suit of a commercial nature above the specified value, governed by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
