Delhi High Court Restores PADAN Trademark Suit, Says Plaint Cannot Be Rejected If Cause Of Action Is Disclosed

The Delhi High Court has set aside a single-judge order that had rejected a lawsuit filed by Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd. concerning the trademark “PADAN” and its associated packaging for insecticides, holding that the plaint disclosed a triable cause of action and could not have been rejected at the threshold.

In a judgment dated March 18, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that the single judge went beyond the limited scope of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by examining disputed facts and the merits of the case while deciding whether the suit should be rejected at the outset.

The single judge, by order dated July 3, 2025, had allowed an application filed by Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd. and another defendant for rejection of the plaint, holding that the plaintiff had failed to disclose a cause of action and that the claim was “purely illusory”.

The division bench observed that while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11, the court must confine itself to the averments in the plaint and assume them to be true and cannot examine the defence or the probable success of the case.

The court said that at this stage the enquiry is limited to whether the plaint discloses material facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief, and that “the enquiry is not about whether the Plaintiff will ultimately succeed but whether the cause of action is pleaded at all.”

The bench held that the plaint contained sufficient material facts to disclose a cause of action and that issues relating to ownership, licence arrangements, goodwill, and the plaintiff's right to use the marks “PADAN”, “PADAN 4G” and “PADAN 50SP” were disputed questions that could be decided only after trial.

Coromandel Indag had pleaded that it had been using the mark “PADAN” in India since 1988 in relation to insecticides and pesticides, and that it independently designed the artistic work for its packaging in 2006. The company claimed to have built substantial goodwill through continuous use and commercial sales, stating that sales relating to the product exceeded about ₹913 crore between 2013 and 2022.

According to the plaint, the company discovered in May 2023 that Sumitomo had launched a product with deceptively similar packaging, which it alleged amounted to copyright infringement, passing off and dilution of goodwill.

The plaintiff further contended that although Sumitomo held trademark registrations for “PADAN”, the mark had not been used in India and that the plaintiff had acquired goodwill through long and continuous use.

The defendants, on the other hand, argued that they were the registered proprietors of the mark and that the plaintiff had no independent rights, as the relevant licence agreements were with its sister concern CAPL, which is undergoing liquidation.

Examining these rival claims, the High Court held that the single judge erred in relying on documents produced by the defendants while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, reiterating that at that stage the court must look only at the plaint and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff.

The bench observed that whether the plaintiff had independent rights in the mark or was only a licensee and whether goodwill had accrued in its favour, were all “triable issues” that required evidence and could not be conclusively determined at the stage of rejection of plaint.

Observing that the power to reject a plaint at the threshold is a drastic one and must be exercised sparingly, the Court held that the plaint, read as a whole, disclosed the essential ingredients of the claims made by the plaintiff.

"The learned Single Judge's conclusion that the cause of action was “illusory” also appears premature, as it is not for the Court at this stage to assess the merits of the Plaintiff's case. Under Order VII Rule 11(a), a court is only concerned with whether the plaint, assuming its averments to be true, discloses a cause of action, i.e., material facts that, if proved, would entitle the Plaintiff to relief. Thus, the enquiry is not about whether the Plaintiff will ultimately succeed but whether the cause of action is pleaded at all,” the court explained."

Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and directed that the suit be restored for further proceedings before the single judge.