Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. Vs Kishor Chabildas Ajmera & Anr.

“a. Allowing the present petition and restraining the Respondents and anyone acting on its/their behalf from violating the Order of this Hon'ble . Court dated 7th March, 2011 by using, manufacturing adopting, operating, marketing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, exporting or in any manner dealing with the trade mark 'GLUCOSE-D' on any other trade mark deceptively similar to the trade mark 'GLUCON-D';

¶14

b. Allowing the present petition and restraining the Respondents and anyone acting on its/their behalf from violating the Order of this Hon'ble Court dated 7th March, 2011 by restraining the Respondents from using the impugned label annexed as part of Annexure G (Colly.) and Annexure H;

¶15

c. Punishing Respondent No. 1 and partners/proprietors of Respondent No. 2 under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court with imprisonment for six months and with fine; and/or d. Pass an order against the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioner attaching the property of the Respondents, the details of which are

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 13/03/2026 at 12:31:50

¶18

provided in Annexure - 'M'; and/or

¶19

e. Pass any other orders as the court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the present case.”

¶20

During the course of the proceedings, the parties have settled their disputes and an affidavit of undertaking dated 26.02.2026 has been placed on record by Kishor Chabildas Ajmera/ respondent no. 1, who is the proprietor of respondent no. 2. The said affidavit states as under:-

¶21

“2. I say that I, alongwith my partners, proprietors, agents, heirs, successors and/or any person acting for and on my behalf, do hereby undertake and affim1 as follows:

¶22

a. I say that I have ceased use of the Impugned Mark ''GLUCOSE D". I further state that I am not marketing, selling offering for sale, importing. exporting, advertising and/or in any manner dealing in any goods/services including but not limited to, products being glucose powder/glucose products baring the Impugned Mark 'GLUCOSE-0' and/or any other such Mark/Trade Dress which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the Petitioner's Trade Marks/Trade Dress ‘GLUCON-D', 'GLUCON D Label' and 'GLUCON-D Family of Marks', amounting to violation of the Petitioner's right · in any manner whatsoever.

¶23

b. I further say that I shall use the Trade Mark being 'AJMERA GLUCOSE' to market products being 'glucose powder/glucose products' in the future. A copy of the Packaging alongwith the manner of representation in which I intend to use the Mark 'AJMERA GLUCOSE' in the future for marketing 'glucose powder1produc/s has been annexed herewith as Annexurc-1 (Colly).

¶24

c. I also say that I shall not use the Trade Mark 'GLUCOSE D' and/or any other Mark/Trade Dress which 1s identical/deceptively similar to the Petitioners Trade Mark/Trade Dress 'GLUCON-D' , "GLUCON D Label' and 'Ci LUCON-D Family of Marks' at any point of time in the future . d. I say that I have taken down/ deleted/recalled/destroyed all content/listings/ promotional material/brochures in my control (whether online or offline) bearing the Impugned Mark 'GLUCOSE-D' and/or any other such Trade Marks/Dress which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the Petitioner's Trade Mark/Trade Dress 'GLUCON-D', 'GLUCON-D Label' and 'GLUCON-D Family of Marks'. I have further written to several third party websites displaying the Impugned Product bearing the Impugned Mark 'GLUCOSE-D' in my name to remove/take down the same. Correspondences issued in this regard by me have been

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 13/03/2026 at 12:31:50

¶27

annexed herewith as Annexure -2.

¶28

e. I say that some third party websites continue to display the Impugned Mark/Product, despite my correspondence. Accordingly, I request the Hon'ble Court to pass appropriate directions against such websites for take down of the links reflecting use of the Impugned Product bearing the Impugned Mark 'GLUCOSE-D' specified in Annexure - 3.

¶29

f. I further agree that upon the Plaintiff informing me of any specific U RL's where the old material is still found in the future. I will take steps (including but not limited to writing to such websites, etc.) to remove the said content.

¶30

g. I say that I have paid Rs. 25,000/- to ‘Tata Memorial Hospital’ as token amount. A copy of the receipt, evidencing the same, has been annexed herewith as Annexure-4.”

¶31

In view of the aforesaid undertaking, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not wish to press the present petition.

¶32

At this stage, it is pointed out that the said affidavit notes that despite the correspondence on behalf of respondent no. 1, the third-party websites continues to display the impugned marks/ products and have not taken down the links reflecting the use of the impugned product.

¶33

Accordingly, the petitioner is at liberty to communicate with the said third parties with respect to taking down the said links as requested by the respondent. In case it is not done, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law.

¶34

The present petition is disposed of as not pressed.

¶35

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶36

AMIT SHARMA, J

¶37

MARCH 11, 2026 /sn/sg

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 13/03/2026 at 12:31:50

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Kishor Chabildas Ajmera & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Kishor Chabildas Ajmera & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vibha Sharma Vs Keshav Chandra and Ors.

Dragon Boat India and Traditional Sports Federation (Dbi and Tsf), through by Its Secretary General Vs Union of India (Uoi) and Ors.

Renuka Sarkar Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

Manisha Vs Mahesh Kumar

Dsfdc Employees Welfare Association Vs Prashant Goyal

Smt. Meenakshi Vs Sh. Dharmendra & Ors.

Krishna Mohan Shukla Vs Sh Anurag Jain

Shane Alam and Anr. Vs Pramila Kumari and Anr.

Renuka Sarkar Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors.

Rajni Devi Vs Sumitra Kaur

Jitender Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar Jain

Purnima Chaudhary Vs M/S Just About Movies Private Limited & Ors.

Narinder Bhalla Vs Surender Kumar Prakash (Huf) & Ors.

Sunil Gupta Vs Sham Dass Jaswant Kumar & Ors.