Delhi High Court grants relief to Dabur, restrains use of ‘WELLFORD PUDIN HARA’ mark

The Delhi High Court has restrained the use of the trademark ‘WELLFORD PUDIN HARA’ after finding that it prima facie subsumed Dabur India Limited’s long-standing ‘PUDIN HARA’ mark and was likely to cause confusion among consumers [Wellford Pharma Vs Dabur India].

In an order passed on December 9, Justice Tejas Karia granted interim relief to Dabur in a petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the trademark ‘WELLFORD PUDIN HARA’ (Registration No. 5509160 in Class 5) from the Register of Trade Marks.

The Court held that Dabur had established a strong prima facie case based on its prior adoption, continuous use since 1930, and valid trademark registrations, and that allowing Wellford's registration to operate during the pendency of the proceedings would cause grave prejudice to the company.

“The impugned mark completely subsumes the petitioner’s mark, thereby creating likelihood of confusion and deception in the trade and among consumers,” the Court observed.

Dabur moved the Court against Wellford Pharmaceutical Private Limited (Wellford) claiming that it adopted the mark ‘PUDIN HARA’ in 1930 for Ayurvedic and digestive care products and has continuously used it since then for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations falling under Class 5.

Its first trademark application for ‘PUDIN HARA’ was filed in 1979 with a user claim dating back to January 1, 1930, and the registration is valid until February 14, 2027.

The company pointed out that the Trade Marks Register reflects 29 registrations for the word mark ‘PUDIN HARA’ out of which 27 are held by Dabur.

This demonstrated its consistent efforts to protect its statutory rights, it was contended.

Dabur also relied on sales figures and promotional expenditure over several years to establish the extensive goodwill and reputation associated with the mark.

According to Dabur, Wellford had dishonestly obtained registration of ‘WELLFORD PUDIN HARA’ on a 'proposed to be used' basis for pharmaceutical, veterinary and allied products in Class 5. Dabur contended that it could not find any evidence of actual use of the mark in the market as on the date of filing the petition.

It was argued that the mere addition of the word ‘Wellford’ does not distinguish the impugned mark from Dabur’s mark, as the dominant and essential feature ‘PUDIN HARA’ remains identical.

Dabur submitted that the adoption of the mark was calculated to deceive consumers into believing that Wellford’s products were associated with or originated from Dabur.

After examining the pleadings and accompanying documents, the Court held that the registration of the mark by Wellford was prima facie violative of Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It found that both marks covered identical goods in the same class, with overlapping trade channels and consumers, leading to a real likelihood of confusion.

The Court further noted that Dabur’s rights flowed from both statutory registrations and common law protection arising from long and uninterrupted use, and that the adoption of the mark by Wellford appeared prima facie to be with a mala fide intent to capitalise on Dabur’s established goodwill and reputation.

“Balance of convenience is in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent. Irreparable harm will be caused to the petitioner if the operation of the Impugned Mark is not stayed,” the Court held.

Hence, it stayed the effect of the trademark registration for ‘WELLFORD PUDIN HARA' and also restrained Wellford Pharma from transferring or creating any third-party rights in respect of the said trademark.

The matter will be heard next on March 17, 2026.

Dabur India Limited was represented by Advocates Kripa Pandit, Christopher Thomas and Visheshta Kalra.

Trade marks registry was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman and advocates Arnav Mittal and Om Ram.

[Read Order]