Delhi High Court – Orders
Eris Lifesciences Limited vs Aaeris Lifecare Pvt Ltd & Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 730/2025 & I.A. 17481-17486/2025 I.A. 18187-
18188/2025
ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Chander Lall, Sr. Adv., with Ms.
Abhineeta Chaturvedi, Ms. Anushree
Kapadia and Ms. Shrutika Garg, Mr.
Pranay Bharadwaj, Advocates.
versus
AAERIS LIFECARE PVT LTD & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 30.07.2025
I.A. 17481/2025(Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, 1908)
1. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that he seeks leave to
withdraw this application and press I.A. 18188/2025 instead for interim
reliefs.
2. The application is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty reserved.
I.A. 17482/2025(Application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 seeking leave to file additional documents)
3. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under
Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) [as
amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (‘Commercial Courts Act‘)],
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 1 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
within 30 days.
4. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents will file the
same within 30 days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘DHC Rules’).
5. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
6. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 17485/2025(Application under Section 149 CPC seeking extension of
time for filing Court fee by the Plaintiff)
7. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the court fee will be
deposited within one (1) week.
8. The time sought for is granted, failing which the consequences of
Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC shall follow.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the application stands allowed.
I.A. No. 17483/2025 (Application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking
exemption from filing Dim/Legible copies of the documents, English
translations of the vernacular of the documents)
10. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking
exemption from filing Dim/Legible copies of the documents, English
translations of the vernacular of the documents.
11. Subject to the Plaintiff filing clear copies of the dim documents along
with English translations of the vernacular of the documents within two (2)
weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.
12. Accordingly, the captioned I.A stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 2 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
I.A. No. 17484/2025 (Application under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking
exemption from invoking pre-institutional mediation under Section 12A of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015)
13. Having regard to the facts of the present case and in light of the
judgement of Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi1,
exemption from attempting pre-institution mediation is granted.
14. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 17486/2025 (Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 seeking exemption from serving the suit on the other party
due to the confidentiality of the documents filed along with the suit)
15. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner, the
exemption from effecting advance service upon the Defendants in granted.
16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 730/2025
17. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
18. Summons be issued to the Defendants by all permissible modes on
filing of process fee. Affidavit of service(s) be filed within two weeks.
19. The summons shall indicate that the written statements must be filed
within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The
Defendants shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents
filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken
on record.
20. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replications thereto within thirty (30)
days after filing of the written statements. The replications shall be
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 3 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
accompanied by affidavits of admission/denial in respect of the documents
filed by the Defendants, failing which the replications shall not be taken on
record.
21. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to
an order of costs against the concerned party.
22. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance
with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
23. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service
and pleadings on 01.09.2025.
24. List before the Court on 15.12.2025.
I.A. 18188/2025(application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC for
grant of interim injunction)
25. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff under Sections 134 and
135 read with Section 29 and 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for
permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringement and passing off
of the Plaintiff’s trademarks, trade-dress, delivery up, damages, rendition of
accounts.
26. The Plaintiff inter-alia seeks permanent injunction restraining the
Defendant from manufacturing and selling products using deceptively
similar marks as that of the Plaintiff’s trademark/label i.e., ‘ERIS’, ‘ERIS
LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.’ and ‘REMYLIN-D’ amounting to
infringement, passing off, of the trademark of the Plaintiff.
27. Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff states
that Plaintiff has superior statutory rights in the above-mentioned
trademark/label in India dating back to the year 2007. He states that the
Plaintiff is prior adopter and user of the said trademark/label. He states that
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 4 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
Plaintiff has acquired several registrations for its trademark/label in various
classes.
27.1. He states that Plaintiff’s goods (pharmaceutical) and business are
known and recognized, demanded, sold, and traded throughout India with
reference to its said trademarks/labels. He states that as per the Plaintiff its
said trademarks/trade name/labels are well-known trademarks within the
meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
27.2. He states that that Plaintiff’s following trademarks/labels are
registered in Class-52: (i) ERIS (Label) bearing Application No. 1728645
dated 04.09.2008; (ii) ERIS LIFESICENCES PVT. LTD bearing
Application No. 2474945 dated 08.02.2013; (iii) REMYLIN (Label)
bearing Application No. 1527882 dated 05.02.2007; (iv) REMYLIN
bearing Application No. 1821051 dated 22.05.2009; (v) REMYLIN
TABLET bearing Application No. 2082509 dated 10.01.2011 and; (v)
REMYLIN-D bearing Application No. 2082510 dated 10.01.2011.
27.3. He states that Plaintiff is conducting extensive business throughout
India since 2007 and the net basic sales for the year 2024-2025 (till April
2025) is Rs. 40.64 crores.
27.4. He states that ‘ERIS’ is the house-mark of the Plaintiff and appears
on its goods. He states that ‘REMYLIN-D’ is the trademark for its tablet
which has a composition of Methylcobalamin, Alpha Lipoic Acid,
Phyridoixine Hydrochloride, Folic Acid and Vitamin D3 Tablets.
27.5. He states that Plaintiff’s presence and reputation for the said goods
and business bearing the said trademark/label in the Indian market has
become undeniable due to its continued efforts to innovate and provide
2
Pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations for the treatment of neuropathy
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 5 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
positive results to the consumers through the said goods and business.
27.6. He states that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in July, 2019 incorporated
Defendant No. 1 company. He states that the Plaintiff on 24.12.2022 issued
a Cease-and-Desist notice to the Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 for infringement,
passing off, unauthorized use and other violations in respect of the
Plaintiff’s trademarks/lables ‘ERIS’. It was stated that the Defendant’s trade
name ‘AAERIS’ as their housemark was deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff’s mark ‘ERIS’. He states that in 2022, defendants had a product
COMPCAD on which they had used the infringing mark ‘AAERIS’. He
states that subsequent issuance of the notice, Defendant’s infringing
products ceased to appear on online platforms as also the market. It is stated
that therefore, Plaintiff bonafide believed that Defendant has discontinued
the use of the infringing house-mark ‘AAERIS’.
27.7. He states that however, on 31.03.2025 it has come to the knowledge
of the Plaintiff that the Defendants in addition to the infringing mark
‘AAERIS’, have also started using a deceptively similar mark ‘REMYFIT-
D’ for its product.
He states that the logo and trade-dress of the Defendant’s product
‘REMYFIT-D’ is deceptively similar to the logo and trade-dress of the
Plaintiff’s product ‘REMYLIN-D’.
He states that the after enquiry the Plaintiff has learnt that even the
composition of the infringing product of the Defendants i.e., tablets is
identical to that of the Plaintiff product i.e., Methylcobalamin, Alpha Lipoic
Acid, Phyridoixine Hydrochloride, Folic Acid and Vitamin D3.
27.8. He states that Defendant’s housemark ‘AAERIS’, its corporate name
‘AAERIS LIFE CARE PVT. LTD.’ and its impugned trademark
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 6 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
‘REMYLIN-D’ are deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s trademarks
and tradename i.e., ‘ERIS’, ‘ERIS LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD.’, and
‘REMYLIN-D’, with respect to its pharmaceutical products.
27.9. He states that the Defendants have during the course of their business
adopted the said deceptively similar marks as that of the Plaintiff’s
trademarks/labels. He refers to the comparative table of the
trademarks/labels of the Plaintiff and marks of the Defendants are as under:
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 7 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
Plaintiff’s Product Defendant’s Product27.10. He states that in these facts, the Plaintiff again issued a Cease-and-
Desist notice dated 08.04.2025 to the Defendants in respect of its wrongful
use of the infringing marks i.e., ‘AAERIS’ and ‘REMYFIT-D’.
27.11. He states that the Defendant Nos.1 to 3, replied to the said notice on
27.04.2025, and failed to offer any reasonable explanation as to why it has
adopted the infringing marks ‘AAERIS’ and ‘REMYFIT-D’.
He states that the Defendants in its reply have wrongly asserted that
the infringing marks are registered. He states that it was stated by the
Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that infringing mark i.e., ‘REMYFIT-D’ is
registered mark of the Defendants in Class 5 vide the application no.
4169244.
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 8 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
He states that the said stand taken by the Defendants in the reply of
the notice dated 08.04.2025 is factually incorrect as there is not trademark
registration in favour of the Defendants in respect of infringing marks of the
Defendants. He states that an inspection of application no. 4169244 reveals
that it has been applied on 07.05.2019 by one Mr. Pradeep Kumar on a
proposed to be used basis. He states the said Mr. Pradeep Kumar is not
related to the Defendants herein. He states in any event the Plaintiff herein
has been using its mark ‘REMYLIN-D’ since 2011 with the mark
REMLYIN being in use since 2007.
27.12. He states that the infringing mark ‘REMYFIT-D’ is similar to
Plaintiff’s registered and earlier trademark ‘REMYLIN-D’. He states that
the trade-dress of Defendant’s products ‘REMYFIT-D’ is similar to
Plaintiff’s trade-dress for the product ‘REMYLIN-D’. He states that in
addition, the house-mark of the Defendants ‘AAERIS’ is similar to
Plaintiff’s house-mark ‘ERIS’.
27.13. He states that this similarity in the house-mark, name of the tablet
and the trade-dress shows that Defendant is seeking to pass of its goods as
the goods of the Plaintiff herein.
27.14. He states that the Courts have taken a strict view on infringement in
cases pertaining to pharmaceutical products as it affects public health.
28. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused
the record.
29. The Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark/labels
‘REMYLIN-D’ and ‘ERIS’.
30. The Defendant is using the infringing mark ‘REMYFIT-D’ and
‘AAERIS’.
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 9 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
31. It is stated in the plaint that the composition of the tablet sold by the
Plaintiff and the Defendant under the competing marks ‘REMYLIN-D’ and
‘REMYFIT-D’ is identical.
32. Plaintiff has asserted that it is using the trademark REMYLIN since
2007 and the trademark ‘REMYLIN-D’ since 2011.
33. This Court has examined the registered marks of the Plaintiff as well
as the impugned marks of Defendants. The infringing mark of the
Defendants is deceptively similar to the trademarks/label of the Plaintiff.
The scheme of the colour combination used and the scheme of the font used
in the infringing product of the Defendants goes on to show that the same
has been copied from the trademarks/labels of the Plaintiff. For instance, the
colour combination of the Plaintiff’s housemark ‘ERIS’ and Defendant’s
infringing house-mark ‘AAERIS’ is identical. Moreover, the manner in
which Defendant has stylized the housemark ‘AAERIS’, the letters AA get
obliterated and it is the letters ERIS which stands out; and the colour coding
of ERIS in Defendan’s mark is identical with the Plaintiff’s housemark
ERIS. To an average consumer with limited attention the housemark of
Defendant will appear as ERIS.
Similarly, with respect to the Plaintiff’s mark ‘REMYLIN-D’ and
Defendant’s infringing mark ‘REMYFIT-D’, in addition to being very
similar in their word composition, the stylizing of the alphabet D with (sun)
rays on the trade-dress is strikingly similar.
34. This Court is of the opinion that to a person with average intelligence
the product of the Plaintiff in its trade-dress and the infringing product of the
Defendants trade-dress will appear as identical. The product category is
identical and the trade channel, as also the consumer base, is identical. The
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 10 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
identity in the marks is so close that the two products may appear
indistinguishable to the consumer.
35. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of
an ad-interim ex-parte injunction and in case no ex-parte ad-interim
injunction is granted, the Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. Further the
balance of convenience also lief in favour of the Plaintiff and against the
Defendants.
36. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants and its
proprietors, partners or directors, and all others acting for and on behalf of
the Defendants, shall stand restrained from manufacturing, trading,
supplying, selling, offering for sale, advertising, retailing, distributing,
directly or indirectly dealing in any products under the impugned marks
‘AAERIS’ and ‘REMYFIT-D’ and the trade-dress set out at paragraph
27.10 above and/or any other trademarks/labels or trade-dress, which is
identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks i.e., ‘ERIS’ and
‘REMYLIN-D’ or from doing any other act or deeds amounting to
infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and/or passing off its
goods as the goods of the Plaintiff.
37. The Defendants are further restrained from using any indicia
whatsoever to show any association or affiliation or connection of the
Defendants or its products with the Plaintiff.
38. Issue Notice to the Defendants through all modes, upon filing of
process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing.
39. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of four (4)
weeks, from receipt of notice.
40. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 11 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
thereafter.
41. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done within a period
of two (2) weeks from today.
42. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service
and pleadings on 01.09.2025.
43. List before Court on 15.12.2025.
I.A. 18187/2025 (Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for
appointment of Local Commissioner)
44. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order
XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC seeking appointment of Local
Commissioners.
45. The Court has granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction as recorded
above in I.A. 18188/2025 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
46. In order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with and to
preserve the evidence of infringement, this Court deems it appropriate to
appoint Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the Defendants, at the
addresses, as mentioned below against their respective names:
Local Commissioner Defendant Address
Nos.
Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Defendant A-155 & 156,
Advocate [Mob. No.- No.1 UGF, West
7503502727, Enrl. No. Delhi, Rama
D/3481/2020, e-mail: Park, Delhi-
[email protected]] 122001.
Mr. Ranjeet Mourya Advocate Defendant Tripta, Hari
[Mob. No.- 7011754815; No.2 Nagar, Beriwala
9599674546, Enrl. No. Bagh South West
D/3412/2022, e-mail: Delhi, 110064
[email protected]]
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 12 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
Ms. Daksha Arora Advocate Defendant Prem Kumari,
[Mob. No.- 9910176670, Enrl. No.3 Hari Nagar,
No. D/1793/2015, e-mail: Beriwala Bagh,
[email protected]] South West
Delhi-110064
Mr. Mehul Sharma Advocate Defendant JM Laboratories,
[Mob. No.- 7984840691, Enrl. No.4 Village-Bhanat,
No. D/6848/2022, e-mail: P.O. Ghatti,
[email protected]] Subathu Road,
Solan, Himachal
Pradesh-173211
47. The mandate of the Local Commissioners is as under:
i. The Local Commissioner shall visit the premises of the Defendants as
mentioned above, to inspect and seize any infringing products or any
other deceptively similar variant of the Plaintiff’s trademarks/labels,
fully or semi-manufactured infringing products of the Defendants or
packaging material which is identical or deceptively similar to the
Plaintiffs’ trademarks/labels.
ii. The Local Commissioner is permitted to seize the infringing products
at the above premises and if knowledge is acquired of any other
premises where the products is stored, the Local Commissioner are
free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a
seizure there as well.
iii. The Local Commissioner shall also inspect and seize any product
materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging
materials, dyes, blocks used for preparing the manufacturing
materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material,
unfinished, packed, unpacked infringing products etc. so that it can be
ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the infringing products canCS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 13 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
take place.
iv. The Local Commissioners shall obtain accounts including ledgers,
stock registers, invoice books, receipt books, cash books, purchase
and sale records and any other books of record or commercial
transactions kept at the premises of the Defendants and take
photocopy and/or record of all such transactions that pertains to
infringing products. The Defendants shall cooperate and give
passwords to the computers and the files containing the accounts, if
the same is stored on the computer or a specific software.
v. After preparation of the inventory, the infringing products in fully
manufactured or unfinished condition, including packaging materials,
advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes,
videos, hoardings, brochures, banners, signage, cartons and other
material bearing the Plaintiffs trademarks/lables & packaging which
are similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademarks/lables shall be released to the
Defendants on Superdari, on its undertaking to produce the same, as
and when further directions are issued, in this regards. The monetary
value of the stock shall also be ascertained.
vi. The Local Commissioner is also permitted to break open the locks,
with the help of the local police, if access to the premises where the
infringing products have been stocked/ manufactured, is denied to the
Commissioners.
vii. Upon being requested, the concerned/jurisdictional SHO, shall render
necessary cooperation for execution of the commission, as per this
order.
viii. The Local Commissioner is permitted to take photographs and
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 14 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15
videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed
appropriate. Two (2) representatives of the Plaintiff, which may
include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the Local
Commissioner.
48. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local
Commissioners to the Defendant mentioned against their names above.
49. The fees of the Local Commissioner for the commission to be
executed at Delhi is fixed at Rs. 1,50,000/- each; excluding out of pocket
expenses, which is to be borne by the Plaintiff. The fees of the Local
Commissioner for the commission to be executed at Himachal Pradesh is
fixed at Rs. 2,00,000/- excluding out of pocket expenses, which is to be
borne by the Plaintiff.
50. The Local Commissions shall be executed within two (2) weeks from
the date of this order. The report of the Local Commissioner shall be filed
within two (2) weeks thereafter.
51. The order passed today, shall not be uploaded for a period of three (3)
weeks for enabling the execution of the commission.
52. In terms of the foregoing, the present application stands disposed of.
53. Dasti, under the signatures of the Court Master.
54. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated
as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JULY 30, 2025/mt
CS(COMM) 730/2025 Page 15 of 15
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2025 at 21:50:15