In a sweeping decision handed down on Tuesday, the Delhi High Court awarded Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. more than ₹1.21 crore (approximately $150,000) in damages and upheld a permanent injunction against several manufacturers and distributors for copying the packaging and branding of the company’s popular electrolyte drink, ORSL.
Justice Mini Pushkarna delivered the 58-page judgment, finding a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from manufacturing, marketing or selling any beverage bearing confusingly similar trade dress to ORSL. Defendant Sree International India alone was ordered to pay compensatory damages of ₹52,56,864 and punitive damages of ₹50,00,000, while the other parties faced smaller, but still significant, financial penalties.
Background
- Case Title: Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd. vs. Mr. Abbireddi Sathish Kumar & Ors, CS(COMM) 801/2023
- Plaintiff: Johnson & Johnson Pte. Ltd.
- Brand at Issue: ORS-L, later rebranded as ORSL (flavored electrolyte drinks sold since 2003).
- The plaintiff in the case was represented by Delhi-based law firm Lall and Sethi.
Johnson & Johnson acquired the ORSL brand in 2014, inheriting a legacy that dates to 2003 when Jagdale Industries first introduced flavored electrolyte drinks under the mark “ORS-L.” Over the past two decades, ORSL’s bright red-and-white packaging, stylized lettering and fruit imagery have become instantly recognizable on pharmacy shelves and e-commerce platforms across India. According to court records, the company invested more than ₹380 crore in marketing and generated nearly ₹3,000 crore in sales between late 2014 and 2023.
Key Findings
Justice Pushkarna’s 58-page judgment highlights:
- Deceptive Similarity: The defendants’ ERSI and ELECTROORS marks and trade dress were virtually identical to ORSL’s distinctive packaging, including layout, colour palette, and fruit imagery.
- “Triple Identity Test”: Marks, business channels, and target consumers were the same for both parties, creating a high likelihood of confusion among buyers.
- Local Commissioner Reports: On-site inspections uncovered over 4.38 lakh infringing tetra packs at various premises, with manufacturing dates post-injunction.
- Malafide Intent: The defendants continued production despite interim restraints, even rebranding briefly as “ERSI” to evade detection.
The dispute arose after investigators for Johnson & Johnson discovered in late 2022 that Sree International India was selling drinks labeled “ERSI” and “CRSI” Fruit Drink, packaged in an almost identical red-and-white format. When legal notices and reminder letters failed to stop production, Johnson & Johnson filed suit in November 2023 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff argued that consumers accustomed to ORSL would be misled by the near-mirror-image design and similarly styled name.
In December 2023, Justice Pushkarna granted an interim injunction, ordering all defendants to cease using the infringing marks while the case proceeded. Undeterred, several defendants continued producing and distributing stock. Local Commissioners appointed by the court later seized over 4.3 lakh tetra-packs bearing the offending trade dress, many with manufacturing dates of January and February 2024—well after the injunction.
“Any minor tweak, such as rounding off an ‘O’ to look like an ‘E,’ cannot disguise an attempt to ride on the goodwill of an established brand,” Justice Pushkarna wrote. The court accepted the commissioners’ reports as conclusive evidence under Order XXVI, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing it to bypass exhaustive fact-finding and decide the case on the strength of the documents and unchallenged pleadings.
The ruling underscores the effectiveness of Order VIII, Rule 10, which permits expedited judgments in commercial suits when defendants fail to contest claims. By refusing to file written statements, the Indian counterparts in this litigation sealed their fate, the judge observed, noting that the legislature intended “such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger.”
Legal experts say the decision will reverberate through India’s fast-moving consumer goods sector, where contract manufacturers and distributors frequently rely on copycat products. This judgment makes clear that anyone—even unwitting middlemen—who manufactures, markets or sells infringing products risks serious financial consequences.
The court also directed Johnson & Johnson to submit its costs for taxation, a process expected to add several lakhs more to its award. With the decree now drawn, the defendants must either pay or pursue an appeal within 30 days—an unlikely prospect for the smaller firms already hammered by a nine-figure judgment.
For Johnson & Johnson, the ruling is more than a narrow legal victory: it is a vindication of two decades of brand-building in India’s burgeoning nutraceutical market. “Consumers trust ORSL to replenish electrolytes effectively, and that trust is our most valuable asset,” said the company’s counsel, Nancy Roy, moments after the verdict. “Today’s judgment sends a strong message that we will act as a deterrence for the counterfeiters.”
As global brands and business continue to expand into India’s vast consumer landscape, courts are likely to confront more trademark disputes of this scale. But for now, ORSL drinkers can rest assured that the familiar red-and-white cartons they pick up at their neighborhood pharmacy will remain authentically Johnson & Johnson.