Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction To HUL & P&G Over Counterfeiting FMCG Goods, Awards ₹2.5 Lakhs Damages

The suit, filed in 2018, was a consequence of repeated instances of counterfeiting detected during police raids conducted in the year 2002 and 2003. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were engaged in manufacturing and selling fake shampoos, creams, detergents, cosmetics, and other household and personal care products under established brands such as Sunsilk, Clinic Plus, Lakme, Head & Shoulders, Pantene, Ariel, and others.

The Court, therefore, on the question of infringement and passing off, found that the defendants had indulged in blatant counterfeiting. The counterfeit packaging was found to be a reproduction of the plaintiffs’ artistic works, distinguishable primarily by poor printing quality. In some instances, even discarded containers of the plaintiffs were allegedly reused. The Court observed that such acts were likely to cause confusion among consumers, erode brand goodwill, and expose unsuspecting buyers to inferior and potentially harmful products.

Justice Tejas Kalia observed, “The Defendants are not only riding on the immense and valuable goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the Plaintiffs but are also attempting to show association or nexus with the Plaintiffs, where none exists. There is a strong likelihood that unwary consumers will be duped into buying Counterfeit Goods by believing them to be originating from the Plaintiffs, which is detrimental to not only the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs, but is also detrimental to the consumers as they are being deceived into buying inferior quality products of the Defendants. The Defendants are dealing with identical goods. Even the trade channels as well as the consumers of the Defendants are identical to that of the Plaintiffs”.

“The Plaintiffs are subsidiaries of renowned multi-national corporations with consistently high sales figures. The Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the Plaintiffs’ Marks and the owner of the Copyright in the Plaintiffs’ Artistic Works and the Plaintiffs’ Marks have amassed considerable goodwill and reputation across the world, including in India. The Plaintiffs being the registered proprietor of the Plaintiffs’ Marks are entitled to protect the Plaintiffs’ Marks from infringement, passing off and counterfeiting”, the Bench further observed.

Advocate Saif Khan appeared for the plaintiff while none appeared for the defendants.

According to the record, multiple raids conducted at the defendants’ premises led to the seizure of large quantities of counterfeit goods. Despite criminal action, the defendants allegedly continued their infringing activities, prompting the plaintiffs to seek civil remedies including permanent injunction, damages, delivery up, and costs.

An ex parte ad-interim injunction had initially been granted in 2005, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products bearing the plaintiffs’ marks or deceptively similar marks. Over the course of proceedings, the defendants eventually stopped appearing before the Court and were proceeded ex parte.

While examining the issues, the Court held that the plaintiffs had successfully established their proprietary rights in the registered trademarks as well as copyright in the artistic works embodied in the product packaging.

The Court noted that the plaintiffs had produced documentary evidence of long-standing registrations and extensive commercial use, demonstrating significant goodwill and reputation in the Indian market.

The Court further held that the defendants had taken unfair advantage of the plaintiffs’ established reputation and had attempted to create a false association with the plaintiffs’ brands. In the absence of any defence evidence and considering the seizure memos on record, the Court concluded that infringement of trade marks, copyright, and passing off stood proved.

On damages, the Bench noted that although exact sales figures of the defendants were unavailable, the scale of seizures indicated a substantial counterfeiting operation. Relying on the principle that notional damages may be awarded on a reasonable and fair basis where precise quantification is not possible, the Court directed Defendant Nos. 1, 3, and 4 to jointly and severally pay ₹2,50,000 to the plaintiffs within four weeks. In case of default, the amount would carry interest at 9% per annum until realisation.

The Court also granted actual costs in favour of the plaintiffs under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court rules, observing that the defendants had continued infringing activities despite multiple raids and had failed to participate in the later stages of trial.

Cause Title: Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr. v. Rakesh Goyal and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1821]

Appearances:

Plaintiffs: Saif Khan, Shobhit Agrawal, Abhijit Mittal, Anukalp Jain, Shaivya Singh & Nishtha Nanda, Advocates.

Defendants: None.

Click here to read/download the Judgment