Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 21 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Plaintiff: Ashique Exports Pvt Ltd (represented by Manager Biju Sukumaran) filed suit CS No.687 of 2017 alleging infringement of its registered trademark “Dr. WASH” (Reg. No.1130214, Class 3) by defendants Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt Ltd and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt Ltd, who market “Dr. Bright”.
  • Defendants filed Original Petition (T)OP(TM) No.340 of 2023 under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act seeking removal/expungement/cancellation of the plaintiff’s “Dr. WASH” entry.
  • Plaintiff sought permanent injunction, destruction of offending stock, account of profits, and costs. Defendants denied infringement, argued the mark was generic and that the registration contained a disclaimer limiting exclusive rights.
  • Evidence: Plaintiff produced registration certificate, renewal, invoices from 2002 onward, marketing expenditures from 2007, and CA certificate. Defendants produced their own filings and argued lack of confusion.
  • The court framed nine issues covering prior use, similarity of trade dress, unfair trade practices, validity of registration, generic nature, unclean hands, and reliefs.

Findings

1. Plaintiff was the prior adopter and user of “Dr. WASH” since September 2002, supported by registration, renewal, and continuous sales.

2. Comparison of trade dress (Exhibits P71‑P72) led the court to conclude that “Dr. Bright” does not usurp the essential and distinct features of “Dr. WASH”.

3. The court held that the mark “Dr. WASH” is generic to the trade, citing precedent on generic terms.

4. Despite the generic finding, the court found no merit in the defendants’ application for rectification; the registration remains valid.

5. Because the court found no infringement and the defendants did not usurp the plaintiff’s trade dress, the remaining reliefs (injunction, destruction of stock, profit accounting, costs) were deemed unnecessary.

Final Outcome

  • Both CS No.687 of 2017 (infringement suit) and (T)OP(TM) No.340 of 2023 (cancellation petition) were dismissed.
  • No costs were awarded to either party.

Topics: Trademark Infringement, FMCG