Delhi Commercial Court Holds URL Alteration To Bypass Injunction Is Contempt In “MAHILA KALP” Case

A Commercial Court at Delhi has granted a permanent injunction in favour of Vansh Trading and restrained the defendants from using the mark “MAHILA KALP” for Ayurvedic medicines.

District Judge Vinod Yadav held that the defendants' use of an identical mark and trade dress amounted to infringement, and that continuing sales by altering URLs despite an earlier injunction overreached the Court's authority and warranted contempt action. He observed:

“The comparison of both the marks show clear imitation, which includes words used therein, the colour combination, etc., with the only differentiating fact to be that the product of the plaintiff mentions its tradename as M/s Vansh Trading; whereas, that of the defendant as Medivision Pharmacy, i.e., defendant No.2.”

The plaintiff, proprietor of Vansh Trading Co., manufactures and sells Ayurvedic medicines and pharmaceutical preparations. It traced the origin of the trademark “MAHILA KALP” to its predecessor in 1963, followed by registration in 1983. The plaintiff acquired rights in the mark through a Transfer Deed in 2016.

The dispute arose in August 2024 when the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing similar products under the identical mark “MAHILA KALP”, along with similar trade dress, including listings on IndiaMart.

The defendants, including Medivision Pharmacy, engage in the business of Ayurvedic medicines and allied goods. The plaintiff asserted continuous and exclusive use of the mark, claiming substantial goodwill and reputation. She alleged that the defendants used a falsified trademark and identical packaging to pass off their goods, causing financial loss and reputational damage, and sought a permanent injunction, delivery of infringing goods, and damages.

The Court had earlier granted an ad interim injunction restraining use of the impugned mark and directed IndiaMart to remove infringing listings. It also appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods from the defendants' premises.

Despite this, the plaintiff alleged that Medivision Pharmacy continued its infringing activities by uploading listings through a different URL on the same platform, prompting contempt proceedings.

The defendants filed their written statement beyond the statutory period of 120 days, and the Court struck off their defence on 18 July 2025. Defendant No. 2 pleaded ignorance and attempted to shift responsibility to other parties not named as contemnors.

Rejecting this defence, the Court held that changing URLs to bypass a take-down order was a deliberate attempt to overreach its authority. It found that such conduct obstructed the administration of justice and directed a reference to the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act.

On merits, the Court conducted a comparative analysis of the labels and found clear imitation. It observed:

“It is further evident from the material produced on record that defendants have unauthorizedly and deliberately reproduced plaintiff's original artistic work comprised in the label and packaging of the product marketed under the trademark “MAHILA KALP”. The impugned label adopted by the defendant(s) is a slavish copy and colourable imitation of the plaintiff's copyrighted work and is substantially similar in visual and overall appearance.”

It directed the defendants to pay Rs. 3 lakh towards loss of sales and reputation, and awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the plaintiff, covering legal fees and Local Commission expenses.

Accordingly, the Court permanently restrained the defendants from using, selling, or advertising any products under the trademark “MAHILA KALP” or any deceptively similar mark.

For Plaintiff: Shri Anil Kumar Sahu and Shri Roshan Kumar, Ld. Counsels.

For Defendants No. 1, 2, and 3: Ms.Anushka Sharma, Ld. Counsel.

For Defendant No. 4/IndiaMart InterMesh Ltd: None