Delhi High Court Issues John Doe Ex-Parte Injunction in ‘Ghar Soaps’ Trademark Case | Directs E-Commerce Platforms to Block Counterfeit Listings Under CPC and Commercial Courts Act
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora issued an order restraining several defendants from using the trademark and packaging associated with the brand ‘GHAR SOAPS.’ The Court further directed leading e-commerce platforms to block or suspend infringing listings and to act upon future complaints of infringement within forty-eight hours. The Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, and that non-intervention at this stage would cause irreparable injury. It directed intermediaries to comply with specific measures, including removal of listings and providing compliance affidavits. The matter has been listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and the Court at subsequent dates.
The plaintiff, a private limited company incorporated in 2024, operates as a Direct-to-Consumer business dealing in personal care products such as soaps, essential oils, and cosmetics. The business commenced in 2019 under the brand name ‘GHAR SOAPS.’ The plaintiff asserted ownership over its brand identity, distinctive packaging, and artistic works created by its employees. It claimed exclusive rights through various applications for trademark and copyright registration. Application number 7158251 was filed for the trademark ‘GHAR SOAPS’ under Class 3, claiming use since August 2019. A copyright registration application for packaging was also submitted under number AT-28784/2025-CO.
The plaintiff alleged that unidentified entities, impleaded as Defendant Nos. 1 to 10, were selling counterfeit products through e-commerce platforms. According to paragraph 18 of the plaint, the plaintiff’s market investigation revealed that these defendants used deceptively similar packaging, trade names, and metadata. The plaintiff contended that such conduct misled consumers and amounted to passing off. It was also alleged that the infringing defendants operated under fictitious addresses and filed trademark applications for deceptively similar marks such as ‘GHOR SOAP’ and ‘HAMARE GHAR KA SOAP.’
The plaintiff alleged that these infringing sellers misused platform-specific schemes such as ‘Amazon Ads,’ ‘Brand Assure,’ and similar tools by filing false registration applications and GST details. This enabled them to gain unfair visibility and promotion alongside or above the plaintiff’s genuine listings. It was argued that such misuse harmed the plaintiff’s business and goodwill.
The plaintiff further alleged that e-commerce intermediaries, impleaded as Defendant Nos. 12, 14, and 15, permitted unauthorized sellers to list counterfeit products. Specific infringing links were detailed in paragraph 17 of the plaint. Despite filing complaints, the plaintiff contended that platforms either refused or inadequately addressed grievances on grounds such as pending registration of trademarks or procedural preconditions like proof of test purchases. Even when infringing listings were removed, the plaintiff alleged that they reappeared under related sellers.
The plaintiff’s turnover for the year 2024-2025 was stated as Rs. 49.11 Crores, with marketing expenditure of Rs. 11.52 Crores in the same period. It was argued that counterfeit listings damaged consumer trust, as poor reviews of infringing goods were linked to the plaintiff’s trademark.
The plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining defendants from using its marks and packaging. It also sought directions against intermediaries to block infringing listings and prevent latching practices. Applications were filed under Order XI CPC for discovery, production, and inspection, as well as for exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The plaintiff also sought exemption from advance service to Defendant Nos. 1 to 10.
Defendant No. 12, represented by counsel, contended that ‘latching on’ to existing product listings was permissible and inherent to the operational algorithm of the platform. It denied knowledge or control over counterfeit listings. However, it expressed willingness to take down infringing links identified in paragraph 17 of the plaint.
Defendant No. 14 also disputed impleadment of Defendant No. 13, claiming it was not responsible for listings on its platform. Similarly, Defendant No. 12 contested impleadment of Defendant No. 11. Both defendants argued that they were the proper parties and would abide by takedown directions. Defendant No. 15 provided the correct address details of its entity for amendment of the memo of parties.
The Court granted the plaintiff exemptions sought under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, as well as exemption from advance service upon Defendants 1 to 10. It allowed the plaintiff’s application to file additional documents within thirty days. Directions were also issued for filing written statements, affidavits of admission/denial, and replication with strict timelines.
Justice Arora recorded that “a perusal of the plaint and the documents annexed therewith clearly establishes that the Plaintiff’s trademark/tradename ‘GHAR SOAPS’ has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.” The Court observed that consistent use and promotion enabled the plaintiff to develop a strong brand association.
The Court further stated that “Defendant Nos. 1-8 and 10, which are unidentified and rogue entities that are illegally listing counterfeit products by using the Plaintiff’s packaging, trade dress, and presentation, act with mala fide intent, seeking to misrepresent and ride upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill.” It noted that “an average consumer will not be able to distinguish the counterfeits from the Plaintiff’s products, and the likelihood of confusion is inevitable.”
The Court observed that the plaintiff had placed products of the defendants before the Court for inspection. Upon comparison, it found that “these listings display the Plaintiff’s marks/trademarks or deceptively similar marks whilst selling counterfeit products, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s trademarks and constituting an act of passing off.”
The Court recorded that balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff, stating “if the interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff.” It concluded that a prima facie case for injunction was established.
With respect to Defendant No. 9, the Court noted that its brand ‘XELOVA’ and packaging were not deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark or packaging. However, it observed that “the Plaintiff is aggrieved by SKU ‘GHAR SOAPS’ assigned by Defendant No. 14 to the said product, which presumably leads to its listing with the Plaintiff’s ‘GHAR SOAPS’ when the consumer looks for ‘GHAR SOAPS’ on a search.” The Court directed Defendant No. 14 to take appropriate steps for disabling the feature or algorithm causing such association.
On the issue of intermediary responsibility, the Court recorded submissions of Defendant No. 12 that latching on practices were inherent to algorithmic processes. However, the Court directed blocking and suspension of infringing listings.
The Court issued detailed directions in relation to the parties. It recorded that Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10, along with their partners, proprietors, family members, affiliates, officers, servants, agents, franchisees, representatives, distributors, and any persons acting on their behalf, are restrained from using in the course of trade and business, in any manner whatsoever, the plaintiff’s brand and trademarks ‘GHAR SOAPS’ and the distinctive packaging or proprietary trade dress. This restraint included marks such as ‘Ghor Soaps,’ ‘Ghars Soap,’ and ‘Hamare Ghar Ka Soap,’ or any other imitation thereof. They were also restrained from copying, reproducing, adopting, or using the plaintiff’s copyright works, packaging, trade dress, get-up, colour combination, layout, artwork, branding, marketing creatives, taglines, or any original literary or artistic material which is a substantial imitation of the plaintiff’s copyright works.
The Court further directed Defendant Nos. 12, 14, and 15 to block and/or suspend infringing listings, including the listings mentioned in paragraph 17 of the plaint, and to delist and/or blacklist the John Doe defendants, i.e., Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and 10. It was directed that if any other third party is found infringing the plaintiff’s brand, business, or packaging, the plaintiff would be at liberty to approach Defendant Nos. 12, 14, and 15 by making a written request addressed to the grievance officer and copied to the counsel appearing in the matter. The defendants were ordered to act on such request within forty-eight hours. In the event of reservations in acting upon the request, the reasons must be communicated in writing within the same period. The plaintiff was required to file an affidavit within one week of all listings taken down at its request.
The Court clarified that in case any seller who is not primarily an infringing seller is blocked in pursuance of the order, such seller may approach the Court by giving an undertaking that it does not intend to engage in illegal selling of counterfeit goods, and the Court would consider modifying the injunction accordingly.
With respect to Defendant No. 9, the Court recorded that its brand name XELOVA and packaging were not deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff had raised grievance regarding SKU ‘GHAR SOAPS’ assigned by Defendant No. 14 to Defendant No. 9’s product, leading to its listing with the plaintiff’s ‘GHAR SOAPS.’ The Court, therefore, issued a limited direction to Defendant No. 14 to take appropriate steps for disabling the feature or algorithm which led to such listing association.
The Court required Defendant Nos. 12, 14, and 15 to complete necessary compliance and to file affidavits of compliance before the next date of hearing. It also directed that replies be filed by the said defendants within two weeks and rejoinders, if any, within two weeks thereafter. No direction for filing a reply was issued to Defendant No. 16. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC was directed to be done within two weeks. The matter was ordered to be listed before the learned Joint Registrar on 25 September 2025 and before the Court on 25 November 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr. Subhash Bhutoria and Ms. Anuja Negi, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Mr. Saikrishna Rajgopal with Mr. Akshay Maloo, Mr. Vivek Ayyagari, Ms. Mishti Dubey, and Mr. Abhay Aren; Mr. Dheeraj Nair and Mr. Angad Baxi; Ms. Nidhi Raman, Central Government Standing Counsel with Mr. Om Ram
Case Title: YMI Ghar Soaps Private Limited v. Ashok Kumar Trading as Bendist Export Hamare Ghar Ka Soaps & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 849/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
