Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors.

Recently, the Delhi High Court allowed a motion filed by Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. ("J&J") and decreed the suit against Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar and others (“Defendants”) without proceeding to trial on the ground that the Defendants had failed to file their response to the complaint.

J&J had instituted the suit asserting statutory and common law rights in the ORS-L and ORSL marks and trade dress going back to 2003. The Defendants were engaged in the business of energy drinks under the marks ORSI and ERSI, used along with a similar trade dress as used by J&J.

During the proceedings, the Defendants adopted additional marks and packaging which were also impleaded in the suit, and the court appointed local commissioners to ascertain whether the Defendants were in violation of the order. The local commissioners filed their reports confirming the presence of substantial quantities of infringing products.

Despite entering appearance, the Defendants did not file their response within the stipulated time, and consequently, their right to file a response was closed, leading to J&J filing a motion seeking a decree of the matter on this ground.

The Defendants asserted that the court should frame an issue on the question of territorial jurisdiction instead of decreeing the suit in terms of J&J’s motion. However, the judge noted that the Defendants had earlier filed a motion seeking dismissal of the suit on this ground, and the court had held that it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter.

On merits, the judge observed that J&J had been using the ORSL marks since the year 2003, whereas the Defendants’ earliest registration dated February 2022, against which J&J had filed a rectification petition at the Trade Marks Registry. In view of this and a perusal of the comparison of the rival marks and trade dress, the judge held that the rival marks and trade dress are deceptively similar. The judge further held that the Triple Identity Test is satisfied in the instant case, the likelihood of confusion is liable to be presumed, and the Defendants’ use of the marks and trade dress constitutes infringement and passing off.

In terms of relief, the Court awarded compensatory damages of approximately INR 52 lakhs and punitive damages of INR 5 lakhs against Defendant No. 1, identified as the principal infringer. Additional damages were awarded against the other Defendants: INR 15 lakhs against Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 (manufacturer permitted by the Defendant No. 1), INR 1 lakh against Defendant No. 6 (marketer), and INR 1.5 lakhs each against Defendants Nos. 7 and 8 (distributors). Defendant No. 1 was also directed to pay J&J’s actual litigation costs.

Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. v.  Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. CS(COMM) 801/2023, order dated July 15, 2025 Read the judgement copy here.