YMI Ghar Soaps (P) LTD v. Ashok Kumar, 2025.

Author: Ananya Kumari, Lucknow University

---

Introduction

The availability and reliance on e-commerce have transformed how consumers and merchants interact in marketing goods. This has become a major driver of better availability and faster delivery, making it more preferred because of its convenience. However, it is not without its cons, especially regarding intellectual property. The rapid growth of e-commerce has significantly altered the tangibility of intellectual property rights, particularly as counterfeit products are marketed as legitimate originals and sold by multiple online vendors. 

The case of YMI Ghar Soaps (P) Ltd. V. Ashok Kumari Trading is an ad-interim order of the Delhi High Court, demonstrating how the Indian Courts have adapted the “John Doe”/ “Ashok Kumar” injunction to this matter. The plaintiff, a direct-to-consumer (D2C) personal care brand trading as “Ghar Soaps”, sought interim protection against unidentified sellers copying its trade dress on e-commerce marketplaces such as Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho. The order itself is significant due to its practical approach rather than a traditional doctrinal approach. The order gives a parallel to the traditional Ashok Kumar approach and a time-bound takedown mechanism binding the marketplaces themselves. This analysis examines the facts, the reasoning of the court and the order’s place within wider jurisprudential influence on dynamic injunctions and intermediary obligations.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff, YMI Ghar Soaps Pvt. Ltd., manufactures and sells products such as soaps, essential oils and cosmetics under the name “GHAR SOAPS, marketed primarily through its personal website and third-party e-commerce platforms. The packaging stated that registration of the word mark and the copyright was ‘pending’. The plaintiff claimed substantial goodwill through a decorative colour scheme, motifs and overall presentation of the trade dress. It alleged that Defendants 1 to 10, described, where unidentified, in the conventional ‘Ashok Kumar’ formulation, were selling counterfeit soaps in deliberately deceptive and similar packaging, and that some had filed bad-faith trademark applications for marks such as “GHOR SOAP” and “HUMARE GHAR KA SOAP”; they had used fictitious names and addresses to obtain the sponsor-listing privileges (eg. Amazon’s “Brand Assure”) alongside the genuine listing of the plaintiff. Defendants 12, 14, and 15 were the marketplaces (Amazon, Flipkart and Meesho). 

The plaintiff professedff that the existing platform grievance redressal was not accommodating; one platform declined the takedown on the grounds of pending registration of the mark, and the other removed listings kept reappearing under different aliases with related seller identities. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for an ad-interim injunction.

Issues Before the Court

The Court was called to determine, first, whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off and trade dress infringement against unidentified rogue sellers sufficient to justify an ex parte ad-interim injunction; and second, whether the marketplaces where the said infringing goods were listed could be directed to take down their existing listing and pre-emptively block the future ones without the plaintiff returning to court each tine a new seller resurfaces. 

Arguments of the Parties 

The plaintiff argues that the packaging and trade dress are developed through distinctive patterns with continuous use, that the infringing packaging was deceptively similar, and that consumers are most likely to be confused between the two. It argues that the balance of convenience was in favour of immediate relief, and that the matter at hand had caused the irreversible dilution of goodwill caused by online counterfeiting, and that a conventional injunction naming only identified defendants would not be enough against sellers who could simply rejoin/reapply to the listings under new aliases. Accordingly, the argument sought a dynamic mechanism requiring the marketplace itself to act on future complaints within a fixed time, without a new application each time. The order was an ex parte order against the John Doe and identified seller defendants and sought a compliance direction against the marketplaces as intermediaries and not a finding of liability.

Decisions and Ratio Decidendi 

The Court concluded that the plaintiff had a strong first case, since the 'GHAR SOAPS' mark and the associated trade dress had built up considerable goodwill and the packaging used by the defendants was so similar that the average consumer would probably be confused. On this basis, the Court judged that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff and granted an interim injunction prohibiting Defendants 1 to 8 and 10 from selling the counterfeit products which used the plaintiff's trade dress. The Court also made a dynamic John Doe injunction, which obliged the marketplace defendants to remove, delist or blacklist any infringing listings within forty-eight hours of receiving a written complaint from the plaintiff's grievance officer. This obligation also extends to any new infringing sellers who may be identified in the future, without the need for a fresh application. Should a marketplace have any concerns, it must bring them forward within the same time limit, and the plaintiff may then go back to the Court if necessary. The key issue is that where there are a large number of anonymous online infringers and the normal remedies are insufficient, the Court can require the intermediaries to comply in an ongoing manner, while at the same time allowing them to seek judicial review if they wish.

A critical analysis of the judgment

The present order is part of a growing pattern in the Delhi High Court's rulings whereby injunctive relief has been step by step extended to cover cases of digital infringement. It follows on from decisions such as Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal, in which the "John Doe" or "Ashok Kumar" method was first adopted in India to deal with unknown cable operators, and from UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.where the Court introduced the concept of a "dynamic injunction" so that rights holders could extend their blocking orders to mirror

sites without having to initiate fresh cases. Now, this order applies the same approach to cases of trademark counterfeiting rather than copyright piracy and shifts the measure from blocking at the level of the internet service provider to delisting at the level of the marketplace. This represents a development of the practices that already exist and is not a completely new measure.

The key advantage of this order is its balanced method. Rather than immediately treating the marketplaces as infringers, something which is in dispute under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and as illustrated in the safe-harbour analysis in Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, the Court has made use of the marketplaces'existing takedown procedures and set a deadline for compliance. The issue of intermediary liability will be settled at trial. This kind of practical arrangement enables the plaintiff to obtain rapid protection without asking the marketplaces to defend themselves against allegations of active involvement at this early stage. The order, however, is designed with speed in mind and therefore gives the marketplaces very little chance to check a complaint before a listing is taken down, which might result in the wrongful blocking of sellers who use general terms such as "ghar" or "soap" in good faith. By assigning the first decision on infringement to the plaintiff's grievance officer, the order also runs the risk of turning a judicial injunction into a process that is privately administered, the marketplace's only safety valve being its right to raise objections within the same time period. Lastly, since this is an interim John Doe order, the reasoning must remain concise: it does not go into a detailed comparison of the competing trade dress or look at the defendants' pending "GHOR SOAP" or "HAMARE GHAR KA SOAP" applications except to draw the inference of bad faith from their fictitious information. More thorough reasoning will have to be postponed until a contested hearing, which, as in most Ashok Kumar orders, may not take place if the anonymous defendants fail to appear.

Suggestions and Scope for Reform

From a common point of view, there are three ways this order could be improved within the legal limitations. First, courts could ask the grievance officer to file a clear, evidence-based complaint before the forty-eight-hour period starts. This would help stop sellers from being wrongly removed. Second, a simple warning-notification process could be set up for delisted sellers, like the protections in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021. This would help balance quick action with fairness and informed goodwill. Finally, since these orders are common, the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court could issue a practice note with a standard procedure for dynamic injunctions in e-commerce trade-dress cases, as it did after the 1337X.TO case in copyright piracy. This would help keep timelines and obligations clear and consistent for all parties involved.

Conclusion

The case of YMI Ghar Soaps (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Trading shows that the dynamic John Doe injunction, a well-known legal tool, is now being used to fight counterfeiting of direct-to-consumer products on online marketplaces. From a business point of view, the order is reasonable and fits with how the Delhi High Court has handled intermediary rules. However, acting quickly could lead to unfair treatment of sellers who might be removed from the marketplace based on unproven claims. Since this is only an interim order, it leaves some important questions open, like the exact limits of marketplace liability and whether the plaintiff's trade-dress claim is strong enough. These issues will be decided at trial. Still, the order gives brand owners a practical way to deal with anonymous online infringement.

References

• Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 (India).

  
  

• Taj Television Ltd. v. Rajan Mandal, (2003) 2 FSR 22 (Del.) (India).

  
  

• UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.TO, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 (India).

  
  

• YMI Ghar Soaps (P) Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Trading, CS(COMM) No. 849 of 2025 (Del. H.C., Aug. 19, 2025) (ad-interim order).

  
  

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908, Order 39, Rules 1-2 (India).

  
  

• Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000, § 79 (India).

  
  

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015, No. 4, Acts of Parliament, 2016 (India).

  
  

• Delhi High Court, E-comm sites to block sellers infringing 'Ghar Soaps' trademark: DHC, SCC Online Blog (Aug. 25, 2025), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/08/25/del-hc-e-comm-sites-to-block-sellers-infringing-ghar-soaps-trademark/.