Delhi High Court Rejects Third Party's Impleadment Plea in Cipla's 'NO DARAR' Trademark Restoration Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by a third party seeking to be impleaded in a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited over the restoration of its 'NO DARAR' trademark.

Holding that the applicant was "a rank outsider nowhere related and/or even remotely connected with the facts" of the case, the court found that it had no locus to be added as a party.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing an application seeking impleadment along with a connected application seeking recall of the court's order dated May 14, 2025. That order had permitted Cipla to file applications for restoration of its trademark and for its renewal in Class 5.

Cipla had approached the high court seeking directions to the Trademarks Registry to restore its 'NO DARAR' trademark, registered in 2011. It also sought permission to file an application for renewal.

The writ petition was disposed of on May 14, 2025 after counsel for the Trade Marks Registry informed the court that Cipla could file applications for restoration and renewal within the timelines specified in the order.

When the matter came up again on May 30, 2025, the court recorded the Registry's submission that the trademark's status on the official portal had changed from "Removed" to "Registered".

In view of that development, it was no longer necessary for Cipla to file a restoration application or pay the accompanying fee.

Claiming to be adversely affected by these orders, the third-party applicant approached the Supreme court. The apex court permitted it to move the high court to redress its grievances. It thereafter filed applications seeking impleadment and recall of the May 14, 2025 order.

Referring to the settled principles governing impleadment, the bench observed that "a 'necessary party' is one without whom no order can be made effectively, and a 'proper party' is one in whose absence an effective order cannot be" passed.

Applying that test, the court said the writ petition was confined to the restoration and renewal of Cipla's trademark as between Cipla and the Trade Marks Registry. It noted that there were "no assertions made and/ or grounds raised and/ or reliefs sought by the petitioner against any other third party, much less the applicant herein."

The court also rejected the applicant's objections based on events that occurred after the May 14 order. It held that such subsequent developments "are beyond the very scope and jurisdiction of this Court and cannot be adjudicated upon" through applications filed in a petition that had already been disposed of.

The court added that it remained open to the applicant to pursue any other remedy available in law against subsequent actions of the Trade Marks Registry.

Justice Banerjee further noted that a party aggrieved by the registration of a trademark could seek rectification of the register. The court observed that this "step/recourse has admittedly not been taken by the applicant herein till date."

The court dismissed the impleadment application and the recall application, with no order as to costs. It also dismissed another application that sought to stay the May order.