Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd.

A single judge of the Delhi High Court recently returned a suit filed by Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“Vikrant Chemico”) against Shri Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (“Shri Gopal”) for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Vikrant Chemico had filed the suit alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off in relation to its registered marks DOCTOR BRAND PHENYLE and DOCTOR BRAND GERM TROLL by Shri Gopal’s use of DOCTOR HAZEL’S BRAND PHENYL and CHEMIST BRAND GERM TROLL marks. Shri Gopal sought rejection of plaint contending that both the parties were based in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

Vikrant Chemico relied upon Shri Gopal’s website claiming pan-India sales and listings on IndiaMart, both accessible in Delhi, and the Local Commissioner’s report indicating sporadic sales of the infringing goods in Delhi for establishing jurisdiction. On merits, Vikrant Chemico claimed prior adoption and registration for the Doctor Brand Phenyle and Doctor Brand Germ Troll marks, which as per Vikrant Chemico had acquired distinctiveness owing to their long and continuous use. Vikrant Chemico further submitted that the term Doctor is the dominant feature in both the rival marks, and that the likelihood of confusion is exemplified by Shri Gopal’s use of a deceptively similar packaging and trade dress.

Shri Gopal denied jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court by contending that no proof of actual sales in Delhi existed. It argued that its website was merely passive, and that the shopkeeper’s statement was inadmissible owing to lack of cogent proof. On merits, it contended that Vikrant Chemico’s registration for the DOCTOR BRAND PHENYLE was for a device mark, and no exclusivity can be claimed on Doctor, which is a generic term and common to the trade. Further, Shri Gopal contended that although their mark Doctor Hazel’s is registered with a disclaimer on the term Doctor, the term Hazel is the dominant element. Differences in packaging and colour schemes were also highlighted to negate confusion.

The Court held that Vikrant Chemico had failed to show any part of the cause of action arising in Delhi since no evidence of sales in Delhi were produced  in trial and mere accessibility of a passive website or online listing, such as IndiaMart, could not confer jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court returned the plaint for lack of jurisdiction. It further observed that the term Doctor was generic, infringement cannot be claimed against another registered proprietor, and the clear differences in rival packaging reduced likelihood of confusion.

Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Gopal Engineering & Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. [CS (COMM) 85/2018] Judgement dt. August 20, 2025

Read the judgement copy here.