Delhi High Court Refuses Ad Interim Injunction To More Than Water Against Nesco In 'My Water Box' Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday declined to grant temporary relief to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco finding that the company had not been able to prima facie establish substantial goodwill in its “WATERBOX” marks, a key requirement in a passing off claim.

While dismissing the plea, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the plaintiff's material fell short of demonstrating continuous use or meaningful sales that could support a claim of goodwill.

The court pointed out that the evidence on record did not convincingly show market reputation for the marks “WATERBOX”, “MORE THAN WATERBOX” or “WATER BOX IS THE RIGHT CHOICE”.

More Than Water had filed a suit against Nesco Limited alleging passing off and copyright infringement in respect of its packaged alkaline water brand, seeking to restrain Nesco from using the mark “MY WATER BOX”.

It claimed prior adoption since 2018 and accused Nesco of dishonestly adopting a deceptively similar mark and imitating its white, wave-patterned tetra pack packaging to cause consumer confusion.

The court, for its part, found clear gaps in the plaintiff's evidence. Much of what was relied on to show sales did not actually support that claim. Several invoices were merely purchase orders with no link to the marks in question, while others raised credibility concerns. In particular, the Court pointed to instances where two invoices carried the same number and contained inconsistencies that were not explained

The court held that such documents could not be relied upon at the interim stage.

The bench further observed that although the plaintiff relied on a chartered accountant's certificate claiming a turnover of nearly ₹40 lakh, it had failed to produce corresponding invoices to substantiate these figures. The only recent invoices placed on record reflected limited sales of about ₹57,000, which the Court held insufficient to establish substantial goodwill.

On the aspect of promotion, the Court noted that documentary evidence of advertising expenditure was available only from late 2024 onwards, with no material to support the claim of sustained brand-building since 2018. Social media material was also found inadequate to demonstrate any significant reputation in the market.

The court also flagged that the plaintiff's 2023 trademark application for “MORE THAN WATER BOX” had been filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, treating this as a prima facie indication that the mark had not yet been commercially launched at that point.

On the regulatory side, the Court noted that the Bureau of Indian Standards allowed the use of tetra packs for water packaging only from July 2022. It rejected the plaintiff's claim that alkaline water fell outside this framework, describing that interpretation as a “misreading” of the law.

While Nesco relied on its registration of the mark “MY WATER BOX” and raised objections to the plaintiff's claims, the court clarified that in a passing-off action, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of its own case and not on the alleged weaknesses of the defendant.

Significantly, the Court held that neither party had, at this stage, been able to establish substantial goodwill or reputation in their respective marks. In such circumstances, it declined to grant an injunction.

“This Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been unable to at least prima facie establish a case for grant of ad-interim injunction against the defendant,” the court held.

It clarified that issues relating to the validity of trademark registrations, alleged misrepresentation, and authenticity of documents would be examined at trial.