The latest news is that the Delhi High Court has dismissed a suit by CIPL against Sumitomo. The Court held that CIPL lacked the legal standing to sue. The dispute involved the pesticide trademark PADAN and related packaging. The decision highlights the corporate separateness and limitations of the licensee. This ruling is a strong reminder that in intellectual property battles, corporate separateness matters. Even long use or group association is not enough unless proper ownership or license rights are established with clear documentary proof. Let’s take a clear look at this case for more understanding of IP rights.
Background of the Dispute
CIPL was incorporated in 1983 and sells agrochemicals in India. It calls itself the parent of the Coromandel Group. That group includes Coromandel Agrico Private Limited (CAPL) and Agrimas Chemicals Limited. In the 1980s, CIPL collaborated with Takeda Chemical Industries Limited. They launched Cartap Hydrochloride insecticide under the PADAN mark. CIPL claimed continuous use of PADAN and its packaging since 1988. In 2001, Takeda entered a joint venture with Sumitomo.
That venture later merged into Sumitomo in 2007. Supply of the technical component ceased in 2007, CIPL said. CIPL claimed it continued exclusive use of PADAN in India thereafter. CIPL alleged Sumitomo planned a PADAN launch with similar packaging. This alleged plan triggered the present suit.
Defendants’ Objections
The defendants sought rejection of the plaint at the threshold. They argued no cause of action in trademark or copyright existed. They said CIPL had no locus to sue on PADAN. The PADAN license was granted to CAPL, not CIPL. CAPL is a separate entity under CIRP and not a party. Sumitomo is the registered proprietor of PADAN since 1969. Neither CIPL nor CAPL owns the PADAN mark.
All use, sales, and goodwill evidence related to CAPL. CIPL withheld key agreements from the Court record. These were the 2003 Trademark Agreement and 2005 Distribution Agreement. Those documents establish CAPL as the licensee, they argued.
Plaintiff’s Stand
CIPL said “Plaintiff” covered all group entities, including CAPL. It claimed Sumitomo never used PADAN in India. CIPL asserted decades of uninterrupted use in the Indian market. It argued Sumitomo had abandoned the mark through non-use. CIPL claimed Sumitomo now sought to ride on its goodwill.
Court’s Findings
Each company is distinct under Indian company law. CIPL cannot assert or enforce CAPL’s rights in court. CAPL is under CIRP; only its Resolution Professional can sue. The Distribution Agreement showed the PADAN license to CAPL. CAPL held a non-exclusive license with no assignment. No proprietary right in the mark passed to CAPL. Any copyright in packaging assigned to CAPL had expired. Invoices and advertisements supported CAPL, not CIPL. Therefore, no cause of action existed for CIPL. Trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright claims all failed. The Court rejected the plaint as vexatious and unsustainable.
Significance for Businesses
Group companies cannot enforce each other’s IP without title. Licenses, especially non-exclusive ones, rarely confer standing. Always file core agreements that support your cause of action. CIRP shifts control to the Resolution Professional for litigation. Consistent use evidence must match the suing entity precisely.
Protecting Your Brand the Right Way
The ruling reinforces strict standing in Indian IP disputes. Ownership, license scope, and corporate separateness are decisive. Businesses should align legal strategy with documentary reality. If you want to avoid such pitfalls, platforms like Trademarkia can help. From filing to monitoring and enforcing your rights. Trademarkia's legal team makes trademark protection simpler, clearer, and more effective, so your brand stays safe where it matters most.
