Is “Pudin Hara” an invented word? Delhi High Court to decide in Dabur's trademark case

Is Pudin Hara a distinctive Ayurvedic coined name belonging solely to Dabur for trademark purposes, or can another pharmaceutical company use it as a suffix and claim trademark registration?

This is the central question in a plea filed by Dabur India for the cancellation of a trademark given to a rival, which contains the words Pudin Hara [Dabur India Vs Wellford Pharma].

The Court on Tuesday heard the plea, by which Dabur has sought the cancellation of the mark “Welford Pudin Hara,” placing the 90-year identity of Dabur's digestive product at the heart of its trademark contest

The case was heard by Justice Tejas Karia, who reserved the plea for interim orders.

Dabur's counsel asserted that Pudin Hara is a coined mark that it has used since 1930, backed by a 1979 trademark application and decades of market presence.

“This particular mark has been solely associated with the petitioner (Dabur) and the petitioner alone,” Dabur's counsel submitted, insisting that any competing trademark registration would trigger confusion among consumers.

Dabur said that a trademark search revealed 29 registrations containing the word Pudin Hara, of which 27 belong to the company. One of the remaining two, now before the Court, was described as a direct imitation.

According to Dabur, the respondent (Wellford Pharma) had “lifted the entirety” of Dabur's earlier mark and merely suffixed it with the word “Wellford”, allegedly to exploit Dabur's goodwill built over decades.

It was submitted that Wellford Pharmaceuticals is also engaged in medicinal products, making it “inconceivable” that it was unaware of Dabur’s mark.

The company emphasised that Pudin Hara is consumed by both children and adults, and confusion in medicinal products would not only impair brand reputation but also “hamper public health.”

Dabur stated that Wellford Pharma's impugned trademark registration was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis in 2022 and granted in 2023, adding that its own search found no evidence of actual use of the rival mark.

Alongside the cancellation petition, Dabur pressed an application seeking a stay on the effect of Wellford Pharma's registration, requesting that the respondent be restrained at least from transferring the mark to third parties.

“We are the prior registered owners,” Dabur's counsel argued, adding that identical marks in an identical class would inevitably result in confusion and that to maintain the purity of the trademark register, Wellford Pharma's impugned mark should be expunged.

Dabur was represented by a team from Ashwathh Legal.