Max Health Care Institute secures a legal victory as the Delhi High Court confirms a permanent injunction and awards Rs. 5 lakh in damages for trademark infringement against Maxlife Diagnostic and Research Center.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld a permanent injunction against Maxlife Diagnostic and Research Center and associated parties for infringing on the registered trademark "MAX" owned by Max Health Care Institute Ltd. The appellate court, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, reaffirmed the trial court's interim order issued on July 10, 2024, which restrained Maxlife from using the trademark "MAX" or any deceptively similar marks.
The court's decision emerged from an appeal filed by Maxlife Diagnostic challenging earlier court orders dated March 5, 2025, and April 15, 2025, which highlighted non-compliance with the interim injunction. The appellants had been directed to remove infringing content from their website and third-party platforms, a directive they initially failed to comply with, resulting in damages amounting to Rs. 5 lakh being awarded to Max Health Care.
During the proceedings, Maxlife Diagnostic took steps to adhere to the court's directives by ensuring compliance with the injunction order and communicating with third-party platforms to remove the infringing listings. This compliance led to an amicable resolution between the parties, wherein the appellants agreed to make the interim injunction permanent and pay the awarded damages within four weeks.
The court, satisfied with the settlement, disposed of the appeal and the pending suit, converting the awarded damages into a decree. The ruling also clarified that further weekly damages for non-compliance would no longer apply post-settlement.
While the court's decision resolves the immediate dispute between the parties, it preserves Max Health Care's right to pursue legal action against other entities allegedly continuing to use the infringing mark at the same location where Maxlife previously operated. Mr. Jolly, counsel for the appellants, confirmed no association with these entities.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting intellectual property rights and ensuring compliance with trademark laws, providing a clear signal to entities about the consequences of infringing on registered trademarks.
Bottom line:-
Trademark infringement - Use of a deceptively similar mark to an existing registered trademark restrained through a permanent injunction. Damages awarded for non-compliance with interim orders.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 28, 29, Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC
