Introduction:

In Vi‑John Healthcare India LLP v. Dabur India Limited (CM(M)‑IPD 15/2025), a trademark suit filed by Dabur India Limited against Vi‑John Healthcare India LLP concerning alleged infringement of Dabur’s Meswak toothpaste packaging and use of the word “MISWAK,” the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, delivered a pivotal judgment. Dabur had claimed that Vi‑John’s packaging was deceptively similar to that of its Meswak toothpaste and that the descriptive use of “MISWAK” misled consumers. The trial court had imposed costs amounting to ₹12 lakh, calculating ₹25,000 for each day of a 48‑day delay in filing Vi‑John’s Written Statement, based on a prior peremptory order. The High Court set aside this order, on grounds of settlement attempts, equitable considerations, and the disproportionate nature of the costs relative to the suit’s relief.

Arguments of Dabur (Plaintiff):

Dabur maintained that Vi‑John’s packaging displayed similarities so striking as to create confusion with its well-known Meswak brand. Moreover, use of the term “MISWAK” was alleged to be misleading as it described similar herbal content. Dabur relied on the trial court’s first impugned order (dated 07.08.2024) which had directed Vi‑John to file its Written Statement within 30 days, warning that any delay would attract a ₹25,000 per day cost. Dabur argued that Vi‑John filed its response with significant delay and should face the stipulated monetary penalty, emphasizing that the order was clear and unambiguous.

Arguments of Vi‑John (Defendant):

Vi‑John explained that delay in filing its Written Statement was not an act of negligence or deliberate stalling, but a consequence of ongoing settlement discussions with Dabur, which progressed significantly during the relevant period. It urged that the trial court should have considered this context and condoned any delay based on merits. Additionally, Vi‑John pointed out that the ₹12 lakh cost starkly outweighed the main relief claimed in the suit—only ₹2.5 lakh in damages—and thus was manifestly disproportionate and punitive.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tejas Karia held that the trial court’s imposition of costs was overly mechanical and failed to account for relevant developments. While acknowledging that the first impugned order had cautioned Vi‑John about potential costs in the event of delay, the High Court ruled that such an order could not bind the trial court from independently evaluating subsequent explanations and deciding on condonation of delay on its own merit. The High Court emphasized that courts must assess applications on their factual context and legal merits, without being slavishly bound by earlier orders, especially in light of changed circumstances. The bench found that Vi‑John’s explanation for delay—ongoing settlement talks—was plausible and warranted consideration. Moreover, it observed that imposing ₹12 lakh costs in a case seeking ₹2.5 lakh in damages was disproportionate, punitive, and unjustified. Justice Karia held that procedural fairness requires courts to balance relief awarded with the nature and scale of litigation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the cost order entirely, granting substantive relief to Vi‑John and restoring equitable adjudication in the trademark controversy.