Who Owns ‘Pudin Hara’? Delhi HC Reserves Orders in Dabur Trademark Case

The Delhi High Court in Dabur India vs Wellford Pharma has begun examining a key trademark dispute between Dabur India and Wellford Pharma, centred on one main question: Is “Pudin Hara” a coined term exclusively created by Dabur, or can another pharma company legally use it as part of its own brand name?

This issue forms the basis of Dabur’s plea seeking the cancellation of a trademark registered by Wellford Pharma, which uses the term “Pudin Hara” as a suffix.

Dabur’s Argument: Pudin Hara Is Their Original Creation

During Tuesday’s hearing in Dabur India vs Wellford Pharma, Dabur argued that the mark “Welford Pudin Hara” is misleading and rides on the reputation of Dabur’s long-established digestive medicine.

Dabur stated that:

• “Pudin Hara” is a coined expression, first adopted by the company in 1930.
• Dabur applied for the mark in 1979 and has built strong brand recognition since then.
• Out of 29 trademark registrations containing the term, 27 belong to Dabur.

The company alleged that Wellford Pharma had simply copied its well-known mark and added its own name in front of it.

Risk of Public Confusion

Dabur told the Court that the widespread use of Pudin Hara among both adults and children means any confusion in medicinal products could:

• harm consumers, and
• dilute the goodwill built over nearly nine decades.

Because both companies operate in the same pharmaceutical sector, Dabur argued that Wellford Pharma cannot claim to be unaware of the long-standing Pudin Hara brand.

No Evidence of Use by Wellford Pharma

Dabur further stated that Wellford Pharma applied for its trademark in 2022 on a “proposed to be used” basis, and received registration in 2023.
Dabur’s internal checks did not find any proof that the rival company was actually using the mark in the market.

Relief Sought by Dabur

In addition to cancellation of the trademark, Dabur asked the Court to:

• put the impugned registration on hold, and
• restrain Wellford Pharma from transferring the mark to any third party during the dispute.

Dabur argued that as the prior registered owner of the term, any identical or similar mark in the same product category would naturally create confusion among consumers.

Therefore, Dabur urged that the rival mark should be removed to “maintain the purity” of the trademark register.

Justice Tejas Karia has reserved the matter for interim orders.