Delhi High Court: In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from falsely portraying the plaintiff’s product “VIMAL ELAICHI” as harmful and containing tobacco, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J., held that the defendants have wrongfully portrayed the plaintiff’s product as containing tobacco and have infringed upon the copyright of the plaintiff’s label.
Background
The plaintiff is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chewing tobacco, pan masala, zarda, gutkha, khaini, and allied products, along with non-tobacco items such as silver-coated elaichi, scented supari, and mouth fresheners, through an extensive franchise network across India and abroad. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “VIMAL”, adopted in 1986, along with various artistic labels, 
and logos, over which it claims copyright ownership under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff’s products are widely marketed and promoted, including through endorsements by prominent Bollywood actors, with substantial annual advertising expenditure exceeding ₹200 crores.
Defendants 1 to 3 are engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing smoking cessation products under the brand “Smotect Azaadi”, which are promoted through their website and social media platforms, including Instagram. Defendant 4 (Meta Inc.) is impleaded as a pro forma party for compliance purposes.
In November 2025, the plaintiff had discovered that the defendants had published multiple promotional videos on Instagram. These videos allegedly portrayed the plaintiff’s product “Vimal Elaichi” as harmful and associated it with tobacco consumption, while simultaneously promoting the defendants’ products as safer alternatives. The plaintiff contended that its product “Vimal Elaichi” is a non-tobacco mouth freshener that does not pose health risks and is not subject to statutory health warnings.
The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants used the plaintiff’s product label in these videos, sometimes clearly and sometimes partially or blurred, but in a manner identifiable to consumers. It was argued that such use amounted to:
-
disparagement of the plaintiff’s product by falsely associating it with harmful tobacco products,
-
unfair competition aimed at diverting consumers, and
-
infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in its artistic label.
The primary issues before the Court were whether the defendants’ actions constituted disparagement and copyright infringement, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunctive relief.
Analysis and Decision
The Court, upon a prima facie assessment, held that the defendants had wrongfully used the plaintiff’s product label “Vimal Elaichi” in their promotional videos and had incorrectly portrayed the product as a tobacco-based and harmful item. The Court found that such depiction was misleading and amounted to disparagement of the plaintiff’s product. Additionally, the use of the plaintiff’s label without authorisation was held to constitute prima facie infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright.
The Court observed that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm would be caused if interim relief was not granted. Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, and all persons acting on their behalf from using the plaintiff’s label or any deceptively similar mark in any form, including advertisements or promotional content.
The Court further restrained the defendants from making any representation suggesting an association between the plaintiff’s product “Vimal Elaichi” and the defendants’ advertising campaigns. Defendant 2 was specifically directed to take down the impugned videos within 72 hours of receiving the order.
[Vishnu and Co. Trademarks (P) Ltd. v. Smotect (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 11011, decided on 12-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Pravin Anand, Manish Biala, Arun Kumar Jha, Advocates.
