Delhi High Court Makes Permanent Injunction Against MaxLife Diagnostic's Use of 'MAX' Trademark

The Delhi High Court has made permanent a trial court's interim injunction restraining MaxLife Diagnostic and Research Centre from using the trademark "MAX", after recording an amicable settlement between the parties.

It also directed the diagnostic centre to pay one-time damages of ₹5 lakh to Max Healthcare Institute Ltd within four weeks, bringing an end to the underlying trademark suit.

A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora confirmed as final the Commercial Court's interim injunction dated July 10, 2024. It also converted the ₹5 lakh damages awarded by the trial court into a decree.

The bench held, "We accordingly, dispose of the appeal as well as the suit by confirming the interlocutory injunction order dated 10.07.2024 as final, which we have reproduced above, and grant one-time damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- in terms of order dated 05.03.2025 in favour of the respondent, to be paid within four weeks."

Max Healthcare had filed the commercial suit before the Saket Commercial Court, alleging that MaxLife Diagnostic and Research Centre had infringed its registered "MAX" trademark and passed off its services as those of Max Healthcare.

The Commercial Court had restrained the diagnostic centre from using the mark "MAX", or any identical or deceptively similar mark. The injunction also covered use of the mark as part of "MAX LIFE DIAGNOSTIC AND RESEARCH CENTRE" or the domain name maxlifeindia.com. The court held that such use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.

The dispute later centred on whether the injunction had been followed. Max Healthcare told the Commercial Court that the "MAX" mark was still visible on the diagnostic centre's website and on third-party listings despite earlier directions to remove it.

On March 5, 2025, the Commercial Court observed that the diagnostic centre had still not complied with the injunction even after being given two weeks to do so.

The Commercial Court observed, "Despite the specific directions and substantial time permitted to the defendants earlier and also subsequent to order dated 07.02.2025, compliance till date has not been made, so much so, that the home page of the defendant itself, reflects the infringement, which is now considered deliberate."

The Commercial Court directed the diagnostic centre to deposit ₹5 lakh as damages within a week. It also warned that any further breach would attract an additional ₹5 lakh in damages for every week of non-compliance.

Failing that, the responsible persons would face one week's incarceration for each default.

The matter reached the High Court after MaxLife Diagnostic and Research Centre challenged the March 5 and April 15, 2025 orders. In the April order, the Commercial Court issued warrants of arrest after Max Healthcare submitted that the injunction remained uncomplied with and the damages had not been paid.

During the appeal, the diagnostic centre took steps to comply with the injunction. It also approached third-party web platforms to remove the infringing listings. The High Court recorded that Max Healthcare was satisfied with those steps.

The bench recorded, "The respondent has also submitted that it is satisfied with the steps taken by the appellants to comply with the injunction order dated 10.07.2024."

Counsel for the diagnostic centre informed the High Court that it was willing to accept the July 10, 2024 injunction as permanent and binding "for all times to come".

Counsel also undertook to pay the ₹5 lakh damages in full and final settlement of Max Healthcare's damages claim. Max Healthcare accepted the proposal and agreed not to pursue the additional weekly damages ordered for continued non-compliance.

The bench clarified that, in view of the settlement, the direction requiring payment of an additional ₹5 lakh for every week of continued disobedience would "cease to operate."

The High Court also clarified that Max Healthcare would remain free to initiate proceedings against any other entity or individual allegedly continuing to use the impugned mark from the same premises. It recorded the diagnostic centre's submission that it had no connection with any such entity or person.