Skip to main content

Anand and Anand represented Whatman International Limited in a suit before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the trademark “WHATMAN”, and from copying the trade dress and copyright therein, despite having given undertakings and the operation of two criminal proceedings against them. The Plaintiff manufactures and sells various products including filter paper. The Defendants in the matter were habitual offenders, and despite an interim injunction operating against them since May 2014, continued to sell infringing products through different family members and related entities.

In 2018, based on concrete information, a contempt application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi against the Defendants. In view of the allegations against the Defendants, Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 were directed to appear before the court for recordal of their statements on 4th October 2018 and on 25th October 2018.

On 25th October 2018, after lengthy oral arguments, the judgement was reserved, and pronounced on 1st February 2019. It was held that the packaging used by the Defendants was a substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff’s “WHATMAN” packaging in colour combination, size, get-up, layout, arrangements, etc. It was also held that the denial of knowledge of the WHATMAN brand and the Plaintiff’s rights in the trademark were a ‘baseless and bare denial’, and the intention was to clearly pass off the Defendants’ products as those of the Plaintiff’s. The Defendants’ repeated infringing conduct was also taken into congizance, the first FIR against them being filed in 1993, having made false statements in their pleadings and in the statements recorded before Court. It was recorded that the Defendants ‘continue to indulge in illegal conduct of infringement and passing off since the year 1992 with scant regard to their own undertakings and to the orders passed by the Court’, and ‘do not have the slightest hesitation in making false statements before the Court’. The Defendants were held guilty of infringement and passing off and liable for making false statements before the Court, showing wilful disobedience.

The suit was thus decreed in favour of Whatman International Limited and an award of:

  • Rupees 1 crore against Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 7;
  • Rupees 25 Lakhs each against Defendant Nos. 2, 4 and 5;
  • Damages against Defendant No. 8 for a sum of Rupees 10 lakhs against Defendant No. 8;
  • All of the above-mentioned sum to be payable within three months from the date of the judgment.
  • The court also held that Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8 were guilty for contempt of Court, for which hearing on punishment is listed for 5th March 2019.

Team Anand and Anand comprised of Pravin Anand, Shobhit Agrawal and Vibhav Mithal

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Sep 05, 2026

Written by: Dr. Ajai Garg and Siddhant Chamola As Artificial Intelligence has now emerged as a disruptive ecosystem reshaping Global economy,  India’s

India’s Pursuit for Global South AI Leadership through Agentic AI Systems: Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Sep 02, 2026

Author: Lakshmidevi Somanath The law currently provides creators exclusive rights over their creation for a limited time, which gives a human inventor

From Innovation Incentives to Technology Diffusion – Protection of Intellectual Property Created by Agentic Artificial Intelligence
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 30, 2026

I. The Infringer’s Privacy Paradox The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) is built around a clear rule. Personal data

The DPDP Act’s Unanswered Question: Can Privacy Law Block a Software Piracy Investigation?
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 28, 2026

‘First published on India Business Law Journal’ By: Pravin Anand, Ajai Garg and Siddhant Chamola The Supreme Court of India’s Artificial Intelligence

Keeping the ‘judge’ in judgment