Big update in the Vi-John vs. Dabur trademark case—on July 31, 2025, the Delhi High Court decided that the ₹12 lakh fine on Vi-John was too harsh, especially since the delay in their response wasn’t serious enough to deserve such a high cost. Dabur said that Vi-John’s toothpaste looked too similar to its Meswak product—right down to the word ‘MISWAK’—and that it could easily mislead buyers.
Understanding the Dispute: Background of the Vi‑John vs. Dabur Trademark Case
Dabur India Limited, a prominent FMCG brand, is well known for its Ayurvedic products, including its Meswak toothpaste, which features the traditional miswak plant. Dabur has filed a trademark case against Vi-John Healthcare India LLP, claiming that the visual appearance of Vi-John’s toothpaste and its use of “MISWAK” mimic Dabur’s Meswak brand and may cause confusion among consumers.
Indian trademark law also protects overall product appearance (trade dress) when it may cause confusion. Dabur sought ₹2.5 lakh in damages. Vi‑John submitted its response 48 days late, prompting the trial court to impose a ₹12 lakh penalty, based on an earlier warning of daily costs. The Delhi High Court, under Justice Tejas Karia, overturned the order, citing active settlement efforts and the excessive nature of the cost relative to the claim. The court stressed the need for balanced and fair application of procedural rules.
What Lies Ahead: Future Outlook and Expected Timeline in the Vi‑John vs. Dabur Trademark Case
In the ongoing trademark dispute between Vi‑John Healthcare India LLP and in the trademark infringement dispute with Dabur India Limited, the Delhi High Court has overturned a ₹12 lakh penalty levied on Vi-John for filing its written statement 48 days late, calling the cost unjustified. The Court clarified that the earlier directive imposing ₹25,000 per day for delay was merely cautionary and did not strip the court of its discretion. Justice Tejas Karia emphasized that procedural orders must allow room for judicial assessment based on the facts of each case.
The High Court also took note of the fact that the delay occurred during active settlement discussions between the parties—an important detail that the trial court had overlooked. Recognizing that the delay was not willful or negligent, the Court ruled that penalizing Vi‑John under such circumstances was unfair and legally unwarranted.
Further, the Court found the ₹12 lakh penalty to be grossly disproportionate, especially since the relief claimed by Dabur was only ₹2.5 lakh. Stressing the principles of fairness and proportionality, the High Court underscored that procedural penalties should not be excessive or punitive, particularly in commercial matters where context and good faith negotiations are involved.
Read Also: Anupam Mittal’s Take on Maganlal Chikki: A Lesson in IP Protection
What Lies Ahead: Future Outlook and Expected Timeline in the Vi‑John vs. Dabur Trademark Case
With the Delhi High Court having quashed the ₹12 lakh cost and condoned Vi‑John’s delay, the case is now expected to return to the trial court for a comprehensive hearing on the substantive trademark infringement claim. A realistic next milestone could be the final hearing, which, depending on court schedules, might take place around late October 2025—two to three months from now.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s intervention has reaffirmed the importance of fairness, context, and proportionality in procedural matters. As the case now moves back to the trial court for a decision on the core trademark issues, all eyes will be on how the dispute unfolds, whether through legal arguments or an amicable settlement.
Read Aslo: BMW F 450 GS Patent Leak: A Game-Changer in the Adventure Motorcycle Segment