Delhi High Court Restrains Use Of Protex, Protrilex Marks In Danone's Protinex Trademark Suit

The Delhi High Court has decreed Danone's trademark infringement suit against Rockwell Pharmaceuticals, Deepali Enterprises, Vikas Nutrisciences Private Limited, Ankit Arora, and Deepak Arora, holding that their use of the marks 'Protex' and 'Protrilex' for nutritional products infringed Danone's registered 'Protinex' trademark.

Justice Tejas Karia, by a judgment dated May 8, 2026, allowed Danone's plea for a summary ruling, holding that the five parties had no real prospect of successfully defending the suit after failing to appear or file written statements despite being duly served.

“The Defendants have merely omitted the letters 'IN' from the Plaintiff's Mark 'PROTINEX' to devise Impugned Mark No. 1,” the court said while comparing Danone's mark with 'Protex'. Referring to 'Protrilex', the court noted that the parties had added the letter 'R' and substituted the letter 'N' with 'L'.

Holding that the rival marks were deceptively similar, the court said there was “evident structural, visual and phonetic similarity” between the competing marks, creating “a clear likelihood of confusion and association” among consumers and the trade.

Danone told the court that it holds multiple trademark registrations for 'Protinex' across Classes 5, 29 and 30, with the earliest registration dating back to February 1957. The company said it discovered in September 2024 that the five parties were marketing nutritional products under the marks 'Protex' and 'Protrilex' in relation to identical goods.

Danone also said it had earlier sued entities owned or operated by Vikas Nutrisciences Private Limited, Ankit Arora and Deepak Arora over use of the mark 'Protilex'. That case ended in a decree dated April 7, 2022, pursuant to a settlement dated September 6, 2021, under which those entities agreed to refrain from infringing Danone's trademark.

Despite service of summons, Rockwell Pharmaceuticals, Deepali Enterprises, Vikas Nutrisciences Private Limited, Ankit Arora and Deepak Arora did not file written statements within the prescribed period, resulting in closure of their right to defend. They were later proceeded against ex parte.

The court said no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter to trial when no defence had been raised and documentary evidence was already on record.

Relying on its earlier ruling in Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed, the court observed that a defendant “should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion” by staying away from proceedings after being served.

The court also relied on the Division Bench ruling in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal, applying the Initial Interest Confusion Test to hold that even confusion caused at the initial stage is sufficient to establish deceptive similarity.

The suit was accordingly decreed in Danone's favour against the five parties, with the court directing that the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.