The Bombay High Court has begun hearing an appeal filed by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. against a July ruling that imposed a ₹4.5 crore fine on the company. The earlier order, issued by Justice R.I. Chagla, ruled in favor of Mangalam Organics Ltd., finding Patanjali guilty of violating a 2023 interim directive. The directive had specifically barred the sale of cone-shaped camphor products resembling those of Mangalam. Justice Chagla described Patanjali’s actions as a “willful and deliberate breach” of the court’s order, emphasizing that the company had intentionally defied legal instructions.
Infringement Allegations
The legal dispute originated from a trademark infringement suit filed by Mangalam Organics Ltd. Advocate Hiren Kamod, representing Mangalam, argued before Justices A.S. Chandurkar and Rajesh S. Patil that Patanjali’s conduct reflected a blatant disregard for court orders. Kamod asserted that the interim order issued on August 30, 2023, had clearly prohibited Patanjali from selling or advertising the disputed camphor products. However, he alleged that Patanjali continued to engage in such activities until July 2024.
Admission of Wrongdoing
In July 2024, Patanjali’s director, Rajneesh Mishra, submitted an affidavit admitting that the company had continued selling the prohibited products. Mishra also offered an unconditional apology to the court. According to Kamod, sales of the restricted products had reached ₹49,67,861 by June 2024, despite the interim order. During an August 2024 hearing, Patanjali’s legal team, including senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina and advocate Serena Jethmalani, admitted that camphor products worth ₹25,94,505 were still with distributors. They assured the court that Patanjali had ceased sales. However, Kamod countered these claims by presenting evidence that the camphor bottles bore manufacturing dates of March 2024, nearly seven months after the High Court’s original injunction.
Continued Violations
Kamod argued that Patanjali’s ongoing actions demonstrated a clear pattern of dishonesty and non-compliance. He emphasized that the company had repeatedly misled the court and disregarded its rulings. The Bombay High Court has scheduled the next hearing in the case for November 27, where further arguments will be presented. The outcome of this high-stakes legal battle could have significant implications for both companies and the enforcement of trademark protections in India.