Kerala High Court Rejects Injunction Plea Against DDRC Agilus Over 'Since 1983' Tagline

The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal seeking to restrain Agilus Diagnostics and DDRC Agilus Pathlabs from representing that DDRC's business has been operating since 1983.

Justice S. Manu held that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for an interim injunction.

The court also noted that the respondents' slogan, “your lab partner since 1983”, was materially different from the slogan used by the appellant.

The appellant's case was that Doctors Diagnostic Centre (DDC) and Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre (DDRC) were separate businesses. His father established DDC in 1983. The DDC banner and logo widely used the expression “since 1983”.

The appellant's family started DDRC on April 1, 1991. In 2006, DDRC Wellspring Path Labs Private Limited entered into a joint venture with NPIL Laboratory and Diagnostics Private Limited to run the DDRC business. It was later renamed DDRC SRL Diagnostics Private Limited.

The parties decided to discontinue the joint venture in 2021. Agilus Diagnostics bought the shares held by the appellant and Elsy Joseph. A deed executed on April 5, 2021, assigned the DDRC trademarks to the company. DDRC SRL Diagnostics was subsequently renamed DDRC Agilus Path Labs Limited, while SRL Diagnostics Private Limited became Agilus Diagnostics Limited.

The appellant maintained that DDRC had commenced only in 1991 and alleged that the respondents were representing that it had started in 1983 to exploit DDC's goodwill. The dispute also involved an Asianet News Network programme aired on March 23, 2025. The appellant alleged that it represented DDRC as having commenced business in 1983.

The appellant sought interim relief before the Additional District Court-II, Ernakulam. The court granted ex parte injunctions on April 19, 2025, but dismissed both applications on March 28, 2026, after hearing the parties. The appellant then approached the High Court.

Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that DDC was established in 1983 while DDRC was established only in 1991. He contended that “your lab partner since 1983” was a false representation and an attempt to pass off the respondents' services by exploiting DDC's goodwill.

Counsel appearing for Agilus Diagnostics and DDRC Agilus, argued that the suit was not maintainable before the District Court. He also contended that “since 1983” was generic and that the plaint did not claim that it had acquired any secondary meaning. He relied on the 2006 joint venture agreement, which recorded that DDRC had been functioning for 23 years.

The High Court noted that the appellant's grievance concerned passing off and exploitation of goodwill. It also considered the limited scope for appellate interference with an interim injunction order, referring to Aysha Jasmitha T.M. v. C.P. Abdul Rasheed.

The court noted that the trial judge had considered the different trademarks used by the businesses. It also took note of the statement in the 2006 joint venture agreement that the DDRC group had been functioning for 23 years.

The trial court found DDC's “trusted since 1983” slogan and the respondents' “your lab partner since 1983” slogan distinct and not deceptively similar. The High Court agreed with that assessment.

The court observed, "On a perusal of the documents, I am of the prima facie view that it was stated in the joint venture agreement that DDRC had been functioning for 23 years. Undoubtedly, goodwill of DDRC was also transferred for sufficient consideration.”

The court further observed that the respondents' slogan was materially different from the slogan used by the appellant. It also noted that no trademark infringement case was made out. The appellant had not pleaded and prima facie established that the tagline “since 1983” had acquired any secondary meaning.

The court found that the Additional District Judge had reached conclusions that were reasonably possible on the material before it. It also found no perversity in the exercise of discretion.

The High Court declined to decide whether the underlying suit was maintainable before the District Court. Agilus Diagnostics and DDRC Agilus had filed an application asking the District Court to consider maintainability as a preliminary issue.

The court held that it would not be appropriate to analyse that question in the appeal and left it to the Additional District Judge to consider the issue expeditiously.

The High Court also rejected the appellant's submission that the interim injunctions should continue because they had remained in force for about a year. It noted that the respondents had entered appearance and sought to have the orders vacated. The interim applications were ultimately heard and disposed of after an appeal had been filed before the High Court.

The court concluded, “On a careful appreciation of the rival contentions and perusal of the impugned order as also the relevant materials, I concur with the conclusion of the learned Additional District Judge that the appellant have not established a prima facie case for interim injunction. I hence conclude that there is no scope for interference in this appeal. Appeal is dismissed. No costs.”