Court affirms Single Judge's decision, restraining use of 'DYNAFRESH', citing deceptive similarity and lack of bona fide adoption.
In a significant ruling on July 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court upheld an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Jagdish Dahyalal Patel, preventing the use of the trademark 'DYNAFRESH'. The Division Bench, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, concluded that the mark 'DYNAFRESH' was deceptively similar to Anchor Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.'s registered trademark 'DYNA', which has been used for soaps and personal care products since 1999.
The dispute arose when Anchor Consumer Products filed a commercial suit in May 2026, alleging that Patel's use of 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners would cause confusion due to the similarity with their established 'DYNA' mark. The Single Judge had initially granted the injunction on May 26, 2026, after evaluating the substantial goodwill and reputation associated with 'DYNA'.
Patel's appeal argued that the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts, specifically GST invoices showing the use of 'DYNAFRESH' since June 2021. However, the court found that these invoices were overshadowed by a prior 2024 order from the Registrar of Trademarks, which had already rejected Patel's trademark application for 'DYNAFRESH' due to its similarity with 'DYNA' and lack of evidence supporting Patel's claimed usage since 2020.
The court emphasized that the findings of the Registrar, which had attained finality, were sufficient to support the injunction. It also noted that the appeal did not challenge the primary findings regarding deceptive similarity, goodwill, and the bona fide nature of the trademark's adoption. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the injunction remains in place, preventing Patel from using the 'DYNAFRESH' mark.
Bottom line:-
Trademark dispute - Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by Single Judge restraining use of deceptively similar mark upheld - Bona fide adoption of trademark must be substantiated with evidence and cannot conflict with registered trademarks.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 11, 29; Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VI Rule 2; Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Delhi High Court Act, 1966
