Commercial Court, Gwalior Grants Landmark Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction Against Pharmaceutical Counterfeiting
INTRODUCTION
On 24 December 2025, the Hon’ble Commercial Court at Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, passed a path-breaking order that marks a significant milestone in Indian intellectual property jurisprudence. In M/s Chirayu Pharmaceuticals v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., COMMS No. 14/2025, the Court granted what is widely believed to be the first ever John Doe (Ashok Kumar) order in the State of Madhya Pradesh, accompanied by an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointment of Local Commissioners.
The order assumes particular importance as it emanates not from a metropolitan High Court, but from a District Commercial Court, reflecting the growing penetration of technical intellectual property remedies into grassroots judicial forums. The interim relief was successfully secured by J.P. Associates, through Adv. Saumyadeep Dwivedi along with Adv. Swapnil Agrawal, representing the Plaintiff.
This decision is a strong reaffirmation that counterfeiting, especially in pharmaceutical products, is not a mere commercial wrong, but a serious public interest issue, warranting urgent, expansive, and innovative judicial intervention.
WHAT IS A JOHN DOE / ASHOK KUMAR ORDER?
A John Doe order (also known in India as an “Ashok Kumar order”) is a form of injunction granted against unknown or unidentified defendants. The remedy allows courts to restrain not only named infringers, but also anonymous persons who are part of a larger infringing network, whose identities are concealed or unknown at the time of filing the suit.
Indian courts have recognised that in cases involving counterfeiting, piracy, organised infringement, and anonymous digital or physical supply chains, insisting on prior identification of every infringer would render judicial remedies ineffective. A John Doe order therefore acts as a preventive and protective mechanism, enabling enforcement agencies, Local Commissioners, and plaintiffs to act swiftly against any person found engaging in infringing activity, once identified.
The jurisprudential foundation of John Doe orders in India traces back to Taj Television Ltd. & Anr. v. Rajan Mandal & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2002), where India’s first John Doe injunction was granted. Since then, High Courts in Delhi and Bombay have repeatedly invoked this remedy in appropriate cases. The present order marks its historic adoption by a Commercial Court in Madhya Pradesh.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The Plaintiff, M/s Chirayu Pharmaceuticals, is a reputed partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of high-quality Ayurvedic medicines and healthcare products since 1991 under its house mark “CHIRAYU”. Its flagship Ayurvedic massage oil has been sold under the sub-brand “CHIRAYU POSHAK / POSHAK” since 2006. The Plaintiff holds Registered trademarks and copyrights for their marks thereby granting them Statutory and common-law rights over “CHIRAYU / CHIRAYU POSHAK”. Decades of continuous use, extensive sales running into crores, and wide distribution through physical markets and online platforms such as Amazon and Tata 1mg have vested the Plaintiff’s marks with substantial goodwill, reputation, and secondary meaning.
The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants were engaged in the manufacture and sale of counterfeit pharmaceutical products bearing the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights “CHIRAYU” and “CHIRAYU POSHAK.” These counterfeit products were promoted on online marketplaces, including Meesho, as well as on various online and social media platforms through misleading and deceptive representations, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s statutory rights.
That, the side-by-side comparison between the plaintiff registered label/ mark/ packaging and the Offending Label/ Offending Packaging has been provided herewith:
That, upon perusal of the batch number corresponding manufacturing date from its internal records, the plaintiff discovered that the product bearing the Offending Label/ Offending Packaging are direct COUNTERFEIT of the plaintiff’s prior used and well-known mark with minor alterations, not visible to the naked eye.
In this regard, the plaintiff approached J.P. Associates for the protection of their Intellectual Property Rights.
Despite the issuance of cease and desist notice and an undertaking by several defendants to discontinue the infringing activities, the Defendants continued the unlawful use of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property, necessitating immediate judicial intervention.
A key challenge in the case was the Plaintiff’s inability to identify all parties involved in the infringing operations. While certain Defendants were known, the Plaintiff demonstrated that the infringement formed part of a wider, organised, and anonymous network involving unidentified manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and intermediaries operating through both physical and digital channels. Consequently, Ashok Kumar as John Doe Defendant was impleaded to represent these unidentified infringers, and a John Doe/Ashok Kumar injunction was sought to effectively restrain all entities involved.
Significantly, the plaintiff urged before the Hon’ble court to consider the broader public interest implications of the case. The circulation of substandard and deceptively branded pharmaceutical products posed serious risks to public health and safety. The sale of unauthorised healthcare products under the Plaintiff’s mark not only resulted in commercial harm but also had the potential to mislead consumers and endanger lives.
PROCEDURAL STRATEGY AND APPLICATIONS FILED
The Plaintiff instituted proceedings under Sections 27 to 29 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 along with section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking a permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs to restrain trademark and copyright infringement, counterfeiting, passing off, and unfair competition.
The Court first granted exemption under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, recognising that pre-institution mediation was inappropriate given the urgency, counterfeiting, and public health risks.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed Application under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC for ex-parte relief and Application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioners.
JUDICIAL REASONING AND RELIEF GRANTED
1) Ex-Parte Ad-Interim John Doe Injunction: The Court was satisfied that:
- The Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case,
- The balance of convenience was overwhelmingly in its favour, and
- Irreparable harm would be caused if relief were delayed.
Recognising that prior notice would lead to destruction of evidence, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim John Doe injunction, restraining:
- Named Defendants, and
- All unidentified persons involved in manufacturing, selling, distributing, or advertising counterfeit products.
2) Appointment of Local Commissioners: To ensure effective enforcement, the Court appointed Local Commissioners, empowering them to:
- Enter premises,
- Inspect, seize, and seal counterfeit goods,
- Prepare inventories and reports.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON
To secure the present Ex Parte Ad Interim John Doe relief, the Plaintiff relied upon several judicial precedents, inter alia:
- Taj Television Ltd. & Anr. v. Rajan Mandal & Ors. (Delhi High Court, 2002),
- Unilever Global IP Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar, Bombay High Court, 2025, and
- Sandisk Corporation v. Amarjeet Singh, Delhi High Court.
- HCL Technologies Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. in CS(COMM) 466/2017
- Munish Kumar Singla Trading As: Chakshu Food Products Vs. Jollibee Foods Corporation, FAO-458/2017
WHAT DISTINGUISHES THIS ORDER?
The present order is noteworthy not merely for granting relief, but for the comprehensive and innovative manner in which the Court structured its intervention. The significance of the order lies in three key aspects:
- Grant of a John Doe order against unidentified infringers
- Appointment of Court Commissioners to ensure effective on ground enforcement
- Passing of the order on an ex-parte basis to prevent frustration of relief
The Court granted a John Doe order against unidentified persons involved in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of infringing pharmaceutical products. Significantly, this extraordinary remedy was extended to a non-celebrity, non-media commercial entity, thereby dispelling the notion that John Doe relief is reserved for high profile litigants alone. The Court adopted a rights centric approach, focusing on the nature of the infringement, the anonymity of the infringers, and the urgency of harm, rather than the stature of the parties involved. This reflects a progressive understanding of modern infringement patterns, particularly in cases involving organised and anonymous networks.
PUBLIC HEALTH DIMENSION
A crucial aspect of the Hon’ble Court’s reasoning was public interest. Counterfeit healthcare products pose:
- Serious health risks,
- Regulatory consequences for genuine manufacturers, and
- Loss of public confidence in the healthcare system.
This order demonstrates judicial activism in its truest sense, an empowered judiciary responding decisively to modern commercial and public health challenges.
CONCLUSION
The order passed by the Hon’ble Commercial Court, Gwalior, is a watershed moment for IP enforcement in Madhya Pradesh. By granting an ex-parte ad-interim John Doe injunction, appointing Local Commissioners, and recognising the counterfeiting-public health nexus, the Court has set a persuasive precedent for future cases.
For rights holders, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, the decision reaffirms that Indian courts will not allow anonymity to become a shield for counterfeiters. For practitioners, it illustrates how precise pleadings and strategic litigation can unlock powerful judicial remedies.
Most importantly, it reinforces that justice is no longer confined to metropolitan courtrooms, it is alive, responsive, and empowered at every level of the Indian judiciary.
Link to the Order: https://jpassociates.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ORDER-COPY-COMMS-48-2025-Ms-Chirayu-Pharmaceuticals-vs-Ashok-Kumar-Order-sheet-dated-24-12-2025.pdf