Delhi HC orders Rs2.5 lakh damages in counterfeit FMCG case involving HUL and P&G brands

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has decreed a trademark infringement suit in favour of Hindustan Unilever Limited (formerly Hindustan Lever) and another plaintiff, a subsidiary of Procter & Gamble, awarding Rs 2.5 lakh in damages against individuals accused of manufacturing and selling counterfeit fast-moving consumer goods. According to a report by LiveLaw, the order was delivered on February 28, 2026.

In the judgment, Justice Tejas Karia observed that the defendants were involved in a large-scale counterfeiting operation involving products such as shampoos, creams and detergents sold under the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks.

After examining the material on record, the court held that the defendants had infringed the plaintiffs’ trademarks as well as the artistic works associated with the packaging of the products. The court therefore decided the issues relating to trademark and copyright infringement in favour of the plaintiffs.

The suit was filed against Rakesh Goyal and other defendants described as members of his immediate family. They were accused of being involved in the manufacture, filling, packaging and sale of counterfeit goods using established brand names. The court noted that police raids conducted in 2002 and 2003 had resulted in the seizure of large quantities of counterfeit products from their premises.

While the court noted that precise sales data of the defendants was not available, it considered the scale of the seizures recorded in the search and seizure memos. On that basis, it concluded that the plaintiffs had suffered losses as a result of the counterfeiting activities.

The plaintiffs had sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing in counterfeit goods bearing trademarks such as Sunsilk, Clinic Plus, Lakme, Pond's, Ariel and Head & Shoulders. They informed the court that these products form part of a widely distributed FMCG portfolio across India and that their packaging and design elements qualify as original artistic works protected under copyright law.

Although the defendants initially filed a written statement denying the allegations, they later stopped appearing in court proceedings. They did not produce evidence or cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witnesses. In view of this, the court held that the claims of trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off stood established.

The court directed Rakesh Goyal and two other defendants to jointly and severally pay damages of Rs 2,50,000 within four weeks. If the payment is not made within that period, the amount will carry interest at 9% per annum from the expiry of the four-week period until payment.

It also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover actual litigation costs, noting the volume of infringing goods seized, the continuation of the activities despite earlier police raids and the defendants’ absence during the later stages of the trial.