Disposed¶27

Loreal S.A. v. Spv Laboratories Private Limited

Delhi HC27 Apr 2026FAO (COMM)/18/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Loreal S.A. v. SPV Laboratories Private Limited; FAO (COMM) 18/2026; High Court of Delhi; decided 27.04.2026; V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.; disposal of appeal and suit; change of impugned packaging; cause of action does not survive; release of goods seized by Local Commissioner; sale after destroying empty packs; pending applications disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and suit disposed of on account of the respondent's change of the impugned packaging; goods in the old packaging to be handed over/collected by the respondent from the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent's vendors/distributors for repackaging and sale after destroying the empty packs; pending applications disposed of as infructuous. ¶27

Loreal S.A. Vs Spv Laboratories Private Limited — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the respondent's change of the impugned packaging, the cause of action for the suit survives, and whether the appeal and the suit can be disposed of. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

Having regard to the respondent's change of the impugned packaging, the court recorded that the cause of action for the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit does not survive anymore.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, both the appeal and the suit can be disposed of in view of these changed circumstances.

¶23

Key takeaways

The respondent is at liberty to collect the goods in the old packaging from its vendors/distributors and from the appellant/plaintiff, and to deal with them as per the statements recorded, including the appellant's stated release of the goods in its custody to the respondent within two weeks.ratio¶26
The pending applications are disposed of as having become infructuous.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (FAO (COMM) 18/2026, decided 27.04.2026; V. Kameswar Rao, J.) disposed of Loreal S.A.'s appeal and the underlying suit against SPV Laboratories Private Limited after the respondent changed the impugned product packaging. Recording that the cause of action for the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit no longer survived, the court disposed of the appeal and suit in view of these changed circumstances. On the respondent's request, the court directed that the respondent may collect the goods in the old packaging — seized earlier by the Local Commissioner — from the appellant/plaintiff and the respondent's vendors/distributors and deal with them per the statements recorded, the appellant agreeing to release goods in its custody within two weeks so they could be repackaged, sold, and the empty packs destroyed. Pending applications were disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

$~37

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 27.04.2026

¶4

- FAO (COMM) 18/2026 CM APPL. 4701-4702/2026 CM APPL. 4705/2026 LOREAL S.A.

¶5

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, with Ms. Suvarna Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

SPV LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Aditya Gauri, Mr. Amar Vivek, Ms. Damini Srestha, Mr. Anant Jain, Mr. Aryan Chhabra, Advs. and Mr. Sanjiv Dadhich AR for Respondent

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶11

V. KAMESWAR RAO , J. (ORAL)

¶12

On the last date of hearing, learned Counsel appearing for appellant stated that the respondent has completely changed the packaging of the product from the one existing earlier (i.e., the impugned packaging), and because of this change to the new packaging, the appeal and the suit can be disposed of. The learned counsel for the respondent sought time to take instructions.

¶13

FAO (COMM) 18/2026

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Signature Not Verified

¶16

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:3 0.04.2026 10:17:09

¶17

Today, learned counsel for the respondent states that, as per his instructions, respondent has changed the packaging in the following manner:

¶18

FAO (COMM) 18/2026

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:3 0.04.2026 10:17:09

¶22

He states on instructions that respondent intends to continue using the new packaging and agrees that the appeal and suit can be disposed of.

¶23

In view of the fact that the impugned packaging has been changed in the manner depicted above, we record the submission of the appellant that the cause of action for the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit does not survive anymore and therefore both the appeal and the suit can be disposed of in view of these changed circumstances.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states that the goods in the old packaging were seized by the Local Commissioner, and the same be released in favour of the respondent, to enable the respondent to change the packaging of the product with the new one and then sell it in the market by destroying the empty pack. He states that the seized goods are lying with the appellant/plaintiff and the vendors/distributors of the respondent.

¶25

Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant is agreeable to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. He states that the seized goods lying in the custody of the appellant, shall be released to the respondent within two weeks from today.

¶26

It is directed that the respondent is at liberty to collect the goods from its vendors/distributors as well as the appellant/plaintiff and deal with the same as per the statement recorded above.

¶27