Delhi High Court Allows L'Oreal To Amend 'Garnier Bright Complete' Suit To Add Trademark Infringement Plea

Justice Jyoti Singh on July 13, 2026 observed that the Trial Court erred in treating the subsequent registration of the mark as giving rise to a fresh cause of action barring amendment.

L'Oréal had moved for a permanent injunction against Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai and others, alleging passing off and dilution of its mark GARNIER BRIGHT COMPLETE and its trade dress.

These respondents were accused of using the marks GARUDA BRIGHT COMPLETE 30x and 6 DROPS BRIGHT COMPLETE 3x for identical cosmetic products.

An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in May 2024.

At the time the suit was filed, L'Oréal's mark was unregistered, so the suit was founded solely on passing off.

During the pendency of the suit, L'Oreal's application for registration, filed on 26.04.2024, matured into registration on 20.04.2025.

It then moved an application to amend the plaint to plead the registration and add a relief of infringement.

The trial court dismissed the application in February 2026, holding that the original plaint contained no averment about a pending registration application, that the subsequent registration gave rise to "a new and fresh cause of action" for infringement, and that allowing the amendment at that stage, after the plaintiff's evidence had concluded, would "turn the clock back."

The Court held that the controversy lay "in a narrow compass" and that the Trial Court had erred in dismissing the amendment application.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi, the Court reiterated the following excerpt from the judgment:

"Since the cause of action arose during the pendency of the suit, proposed amendment ought to have been granted because the basic structure of the suit has not changed and that there was merely change in the nature of relief claimed."

Rejecting the Trial Court's reasoning that the amendment was barred because the original plaint did not mention the pending application, the Court noted:

"The impugned order itself shows that the Trial Court was conscious of the fact that the application for registration was filed only after the suit was filed and therefore, the observation that there was no mention of the application in the original plaint, is completely erroneous."

On the objection that the plaintiff's evidence had already concluded, the Court held this could not justify dismissal, noting that the respondents opposing the amendment were already proceeded against ex parte, and that refusing the amendment "will lead to yet another suit, which will be only increase and prolonging the conclusion of litigation inter se the parties with respect to the same trademark and products."

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the Trial Court's order dated 10.02.2026.

The trial court was directed to take the amended plaint on record and proceed with the suit accordingly.

For Loreal: Advocate Pankaj Kumar

For Respondents: Advocates Parth Thummar and Nishant Verma