Delhi High Court grants dynamic John Doe injunction in favour of ‘Ghar Soaps’: Directs e-commerce sites to block infringing listings

Introduction

The case of YMI Ghar Soaps Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar trading as Bendist Export, Hamare Ghar Ka Soaps & Ors. (CS(COMM) 849/2025), decided by the Delhi High Court on 19 August 2025, is a crucial ruling in the field of intellectual property rights with particular focus on counterfeiting, passing off, and intermediary liability in the digital marketplace. The plaintiff, YMI Ghar Soaps Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 2024 but active in direct-to-consumer business since 2019 under the brand “GHAR SOAPS”, approached the court alleging that various counterfeiters were selling fake products using deceptively similar marks and packaging while exploiting e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart, and Meesho to pass off these goods as genuine. The court not only examined the rights of the plaintiff over trademarks and copyrights, even though registration was pending, but also addressed the broader issue of how online platforms contribute to or prevent the sale of counterfeit goods. The case stands out for its detailed engagement with procedural applications, interim reliefs, and substantive questions of law while balancing fairness and accountability in the fast-growing digital commerce ecosystem.

Procedural Applications and Exemptions

The court first dealt with multiple procedural applications filed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Under Order XI CPC, it directed the defendants, especially the intermediaries, to disclose the identities of infringing sellers, provide BSI details, and share information about counterfeit listings, thereby empowering the plaintiff to trace rogue sellers effectively. Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, the plaintiff sought exemption from pre-institution mediation, citing urgency in seeking injunctions against counterfeiters. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815 and granted this exemption, affirming that in urgent intellectual property matters, mediation requirements cannot be allowed to defeat immediate relief. The plaintiff also moved under Section 151 CPC, seeking exemption from advance service on unidentified John Doe defendants, which the court allowed in recognition of the practical impossibility of serving such parties at the early stage. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted leave to file further documents within 30 days, highlighting the court’s willingness to allow flexibility while insisting on strict compliance with the framework of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Collectively, these applications reflect how the court managed procedural rigor with equitable flexibility, ensuring that formalities did not obstruct substantive justice.

Trademark and Copyright Protection

The plaintiff established its case by pointing to both trademark and copyright applications that were pending registration. Its first trademark application (No. 7158251, Class 3) claimed use of the mark “GHAR SOAPS” since 24 August 2019, and a copyright application (No. AT-28784/2025-CO) for its packaging artwork was also pending. Despite the absence of registered rights, the plaintiff demonstrated significant goodwill and reputation, supported by evidence of a turnover of ₹49.11 crore in FY 2024-25 and marketing expenses exceeding ₹11.52 crore in the same year. The court observed that through consistent use and heavy investment in advertising across platforms such as its own e-commerce sites, Amazon, Flipkart, and other digital channels, the brand had become a well-recognized name in the personal care segment. It also noted that the packaging designs, motifs, and artistic works had been created by employees in the course of employment and subsequently assigned to the plaintiff through a confirmatory ownership agreement in July 2025, ensuring consolidated title over the intellectual property. On this basis, the court accepted the plaintiff’s proprietary rights and reaffirmed the legal principle that even unregistered marks can be protected if they enjoy substantial goodwill and distinctiveness.

Passing Off and Counterfeit Goods

A central element of the case was the sale of counterfeit products under marks such as “GHOR SOAP” and “Hamare Ghar Ka Soap”, which were accompanied by deceptively similar packaging and misleading representations. The plaintiff established through test purchases and market investigations that these goods were deliberately designed to exploit the reputation of GHAR SOAPS, with sellers even filing false trademark applications using fictitious addresses in order to misuse premium e-commerce services like sponsored advertisements and brand-assurance schemes. The court held that this amounted to a classic case of passing off, where consumers were likely to be misled into believing that the counterfeit goods were associated with the plaintiff. Importantly, the court also noted that poor reviews attached to such counterfeit products on e-commerce platforms risked tarnishing the plaintiff’s reputation, since consumers would associate negative experiences with the genuine brand. This recognition reinforced the doctrine of passing off as a safeguard not just against consumer deception but also against reputational harm to brand owners in a competitive market.

Intermediary Liability and “Latching On”

A distinctive feature of this case was the court’s extensive engagement with the responsibility of e-commerce platforms. The plaintiff alleged that intermediaries like Amazon, Flipkart, and Meesho allowed infringing sellers to exploit the “latching on” mechanism, whereby unauthorized sellers append their products to existing product listings of established brands, thereby misusing the brand’s name, images, and descriptions. Amazon defended itself by arguing that such latching on is algorithm-driven and not within its active control. However, the court found such reasoning inadequate and stressed that intermediaries cannot turn a blind eye to misuse of their platforms. It directed the defendants to take down all infringing listings identified in the plaint, blacklist rogue sellers, and respond to takedown requests within 48 hours, either by complying or by giving written reasons for refusal. The order further clarified that intermediaries must act proactively to prevent the reappearance of infringing goods and cannot rely on technical excuses. This aspect of the ruling is particularly significant because it advances the jurisprudence on intermediary liability, signalling that platforms in India will be held accountable for preventing misuse of their services to facilitate infringement.

Reliefs Granted and the Case of XELOVA

The court granted a broad interim injunction restraining Defendants 1-8 and 10 from using the plaintiff’s mark “GHAR SOAPS” or any deceptively similar variant, copying its copyrighted packaging, or imitating its trade dress, get-up, and presentation. This protection extended to all artistic works, motifs, and layouts forming part of the plaintiff’s identity, underscoring the broad scope of copyright and trademark protection in such cases. However, with respect to Defendant 9 (“XELOVA”), the court took a more restrained approach. After examining the brand and its packaging, it held that XELOVA’s mark was not deceptively similar to GHAR SOAPS and declined to remove its listings. Nevertheless, the court acknowledged the plaintiff’s grievance that Flipkart had assigned XELOVA’s product the SKU “GHAR SOAPS,” causing search results to misleadingly associate the two. It therefore directed Flipkart to correct such algorithmic mis-linkages, thereby addressing consumer confusion without overextending liability onto unrelated brands. This balanced approach demonstrates judicial sensitivity to the complexities of algorithm-driven commerce, ensuring that while genuine counterfeiting is curbed, legitimate businesses are not unnecessarily restrained.

Conclusion

This judgement reaffirmed that even unregistered trademarks can be protected if backed by substantial goodwill. The Court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, holding that Defendants with comparable reputations and online presence could cause confusion and were liable. Proxies were made responsible not just for takedowns but also for ensuring their algorithms and promotions do not aid infringement, with a 48-hour compliance window underscoring prompt action.

The ruling strengthens consumer protection by curbing counterfeiters who harm brands and mislead buyers in e-commerce. It also signals the judiciary’s readiness to grant swift relief to rights holders, especially D2C brands, while balancing obligations under the Commercial Courts Act. Though showing leniency in one instance (Defendant No. 9), the judgment blends continuity in IP principles with a forward-looking response to digital-age challenges.