E-commerce platform found promoting and selling infringing insecticides without valid licenses and authorization, violating Trade Marks Act and Insecticides Act; Defendant ordered to remove listings and disclose supply chain details.
In a significant judgment dated October 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Mr. Tejas Karia, J., granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of UPL Limited and UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Ltd. ("Plaintiffs") against Agro Orbit Hub Pvt. Ltd. ("Defendant No. 1") and unknown entities ("Defendant No. 2") for infringement of registered trademarks and violation of statutory provisions under the Insecticides Act, 1968.
The Plaintiffs, leading agrochemical companies in India, are registered proprietors of numerous agrochemical trademarks including SAAFILIZER, IMIDA, LAGAAM, CENTURION, and others. They produce and market a wide range of crop protection products such as herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and bio-stimulants, generating a combined annual turnover exceeding ₹9,000 crores for FY 2025-26.
The Defendants operate an e-commerce platform accessible via www.agroorbit.com and mobile applications, marketing agri-input products. Despite claiming to be mere intermediaries, the Court found prima facie evidence that Defendant No. 1 was actively advertising, selling, and promoting products bearing Plaintiffs' registered marks without authorization or valid statutory licenses.
Key findings include:
- Inspection conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Department at Defendant No. 1's premises revealed stock of Plaintiffs' products without the mandatory "Principal Certificate" or valid licenses as required under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act and Rules 10(4A) and 10(E) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
- The e-commerce portal featured infringing products under "Popular Brand" and "Flash Deals" sections, indicating active promotion rather than passive hosting.
- Defendant No. 1 failed to verify statutory compliance of sellers offering insecticides on its platform, breaching Rule 10(E) designed to regulate online sale of insecticides.
- Stop Sale Notice was issued by the Plant Protection Officer following the inspection.
The Court noted that the Defendants' acts were prima facie dishonest, amounting to an attempt to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs' marks, likely to cause confusion in trade and dilute the Plaintiffs' established goodwill.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing with infringing products bearing the Plaintiffs' marks or deceptively similar marks without authorization and requisite statutory certification.
Further, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to:
- Remove and disable all infringing product listings on its website within 72 hours of notice.
- Disclose in a sealed and password-protected document detailed information about the sellers of infringing products, including names, contact details, GST details, sales figures, bank accounts, and details of all entities involved in manufacture, distribution, and sale within four weeks.
The Court also exempted the Plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, recognizing the urgency of the matter.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's firm stance against unauthorized sale of agrochemical products online and highlights the regulatory obligations of e-commerce platforms under the Insecticides Act and Rules. It sends a strong message to online marketplaces about the importance of verifying licenses and preventing the sale of counterfeit or unauthorized agricultural chemicals that pose risks to health and safety.
The next hearing is scheduled for January 27, 2027, where further pleadings will be considered.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks and passing off - Agrochemical products - E-commerce platform claiming to be intermediary but prima facie itself offering and promoting infringing products bearing plaintiffs' registered marks - Sale and stocking of insecticides without plaintiffs' authorisation, Principal Certificate and statutory compliance under Section 13 of Insecticides Act and Rules 10(4A) and 10(E) of Insecticides Rules - Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted - Defendant directed to take down infringing listings and disclose details of sellers and supply chain.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999, Insecticides Act, 1968 Section 13, Insecticides Rules, 1971 Rules 10(4A), 10(E), Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12A, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
UPL Limited v. Agro Orbit Hub Pvt. Ltd., (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004078
