Single Judge Could Not Have Relaxed Injunction Upheld By Division Bench In Dabur-Emami Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a single judge cannot relax an interim injunction restraining Dabur India Limited from selling its “Cool King Thanda Tel” under a trade dress found deceptively similar to Emami Limited's product after a Division Bench has already upheld the injunction in appeal.

A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Dabur's subsequent application seeking permission to dispose of its existing stock could not have been entertained by the Single Judge.

“Once the Division Bench, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, upheld the interim injunction granted in favour of the Appellant, the interim injunction judgment dated 31.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge stood merged into the judgment passed by the Division Bench It is the judgment of the Division Bench which thereafter became operative and binds the parties, and can be enforced against the Respondent. Consequently, the respondent's subsequent application seeking permission to dispose of its existing stock could not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge as the relief sought had the effect of modifying the injunction affirmed by the Division Bench. Any clarification, variation, or relaxation of the interim injunction judgment of the Division Bench was required to be sought by the parties from the Division Bench or Superior Court,” the bench observed.

The dispute arose from Emami's suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices and damages against Dabur. Emami claimed that Dabur's “Cool King Thanda Tel” used a trade dress deceptively similar to its product.

On January 31, 2026, the single judge restrained Dabur from selling the product under the impugned trade dress or any other trade dress deceptively similar to Emami's. Dabur challenged the injunction, but the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on May 22 and upheld the restraint.

Four days later, Dabur approached the Single Judge seeking permission to exhaust its existing stock. On June 19, the Single Judge allowed the request and permitted Dabur to exhaust its existing stock manufactured up to January 31 until September 30.

The order required Dabur to forthwith recall any stock remaining unsold on September 30 from distributors, retailers, chemists, shopkeepers, e-commerce platforms and other channels.

Emami challenged this order before the Division Bench. The bench held that the appeal was maintainable because the Single Judge's order effectively varied the injunction. It therefore amounted to an exercise of jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The bench rejected the single judge's reasoning that Dabur's request to exhaust existing stock was a fresh issue. It observed that such relief was implicit in the original injunction proceedings and could have been sought before the Single Judge or during Dabur's appeal before the division bench.

Allowing repeated applications to dilute injunctions already upheld in appeal would undermine judicial hierarchy, the bench observed. “Such an approach will lead to multiplicity of applications by the unsuccessful defendant, seeking to chip away on the injunction order, and further rounds of appeal as is evident from the facts of this case.”

The bench accordingly held that Dabur's application before the Single Judge was not maintainable.

However, the Division Bench itself allowed Dabur to dispose of its existing stock of 9,020 cartons, subject to the conditions imposed by the Single Judge. It held that the permission would be “deemed to have been granted by this Court.”

The bench rejected Dabur's request to avoid recalling unsold products from wholesalers and retailers. It observed that allowing such stock to remain in the market after September 30 would set at naught the injunction.

The bench also held that permission to sell existing infringing stock is discretionary relief intended to reduce economic waste, not a right. Dabur could instead repackage the goods in a new trade dress distinct from Emami's.

The bench clarified that Dabur could exercise the conditional permission only if it could recall the unsold stock on September 30. If it could not, it could not act in furtherance of the conditional permission and could instead opt to repackage the goods.