“Cannot Invoke the Jurisdiction of the Trial Court”: Delhi High Court Dismisses Hamdard’s Appeal in Unani Trademark Row, Directs Filing Before Commercial Court
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma dismissed two first appeals challenging the denial of interim relief and contempt proceedings in a trademark and reputational dispute between a Unani medicine company and a manufacturers’ association. The Court held that the suit filed in the district court was not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent Commercial Court.
The appellant is a pharmaceutical entity operating under the name Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division), with a legacy linked to the Hamdard Group established in 1906. It claims exclusive rights to manufacture and market Unani and Ayurvedic medicines under the ‘HAMDARD’ mark by virtue of a Deed of Agreement dated 11 August 1975 executed with Hamdard National Foundation.
A Family Settlement Deed dated 22 October 2019, arising out of disputes among successors of Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed, bifurcated the Hamdard Group into two entities—the Food Division and the Medicine Division. As per Clause 11 of the settlement, the Medicine Division was prohibited from dealing in goods under trademark classes 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34, while the Food Division was prohibited from engaging with classes 3, 5, and 10.
The appellant alleged that the respondent, Unani Drugs Manufacturer Association (UDMA), registered in 2017 under the Societies Registration Act, falsely claimed on its website that its membership covers more than 95% of the Unani industry, while allegedly including the appellant’s product share in its figures. The appellant further asserted that UDMA depicted food products manufactured by the Food Division—such as ROOH AFZA, JAM-E-SHIRIN, and HAMDARD HONEY—as Unani medicinal products, which it claimed was misleading and in breach of the Family Settlement Deed.
The appellant issued a public notice dated 10 October 2021 disassociating from such representations and emailed the notice to the Department of AYUSH. In response, the respondent wrote to the Directorate of AYUSH, defending its actions and asserting that it had consent from the Food Division to use the name ‘HAMDARD’.
Subsequently, the appellant filed a civil suit for compensation in the trial court, claiming defamation and misrepresentation. It also filed applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking interim relief to restrain UDMA from portraying Food Division products as Unani medicines and claiming a 90% market share, and under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC alleging wilful violation of a prior interim injunction. On 1 August 2022, the trial court granted interim relief. However, the appellant alleged that the respondent violated the order during the 5th UDMA Day celebrations held from 14–16 October 2022.
On 29 August 2024, the trial court dismissed both applications, holding that the appellant lacked locus standi since the suit was not filed by the Food Division, which was the party whose products were allegedly misrepresented.
The High Court considered the trial court’s reasoning in denying interim relief and contempt action. Justice Dharmesh Sharma recorded: “The reasoning accorded by the learned trial Court... that it was the prerogative of the HAMDARD (Food Division) alone to enforce their legal rights arising out of the Family Settlement Deed... is flawed.” The Court noted that, if the allegations were believed, “HFI [Food Division] would rather be a direct or indirect beneficiary of the impugned proclamations by the respondent/defendant.”
However, the Court proceeded to examine the underlying nature of the dispute and held: “The core issue raised... is with regard to the use of the trade name ‘HAMDARD’ by the respondent/defendant with respect to the Hamdard (Food Division) Products claiming them to be Unani Medicinal Products.”
The Court recorded: “Although the suit is couched by the appellant/plaintiff as a suit for compensation/damages... the cause of action essentially emanates from the Family Settlement... whereby the appellant/plaintiff has been accorded an exclusive right to deal in Medicines, Pharmaceuticals, Drugs & Cosmetics.”
The Court noted that the reliefs sought in the application for interim relief went beyond the scope of the main suit. The reliefs in the suit included directions against UDMA to refrain from using the name ‘HAMDARD’ and to declare that the appellant was not its member, along with damages of ₹5,00,000. However, the Court held that the crux of the matter involved “the use of the trade name ‘HAMDARD’ in relation to Unani Medicinal Products” and therefore fell within the ambit of a commercial dispute under Sections 2(1)(c)(ix) and (xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court stated: “Although the learned trial Court has not discussed the ‘trinity test’ while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC... this Court has no hesitation in finding that the appellant/plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court seeking the reliefs which are claimed.”
Regarding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, the Court held: “It cannot be said that the defendant has willfully violated any interim order dated 01.08.2022... as even otherwise... the defendant was never served the original plaint of the present suit nor communicated about the operation of ex-parte order.”
The Court further recorded: “Where the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction... it would not be conducive to take any action for the alleged contempt or disobedience of the directions of that Court.”
The Court dismissed both appeals and directed as follows:
“The learned trial Court shall return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC with liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to present the plaint for redressal of its grievances before the competent Commercial Court.”
It further held:
“Resultantly, the present appeal is dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.”
In respect of the second appeal concerning the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, the Court held:
“The learned trial Court has accorded sound reasons for dismissing the application... The present appeal also stands dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shalini Kapoor, Ms. Divyanshi Saxena, and Mr. Udit Bhatiani, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. N.K. Jha, Advocate
Case Title: Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) v. Unani Drugs Manufacturer Association (UDMA)
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 2227
Case Numbers: FAO 328/2024 and FAO 347/2024
Bench: Justice Dharmesh Sharma
[Read/Download order]
