Delhi High Court Upholds No Absolute Injunction in 'WATERBOX' vs 'MY WATER BOX' Passing Off Dispute

The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with a single judge order declining an absolute interim injunction in a passing off dispute between packaged drinking water companies More Than Water Private Limited and NESCO Limited.

A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora noted that the single judge had rightly held that at the prima facie stage, the doucmentary proofs submitted by More Than Water Private Limited (the appellant) to claim proprietorship rights over marks ‘WATERBOX’, ‘WATER BOX’, ‘MORE THAN WATERBOX’, and ‘WATERBOX IS THE RIGHT CHOICE’, did not appear to be genuine. Court held that the company did not approach the court with clean hands.

Court, however, also made strong prima facie observations against NESCO Limited (the respondent), saying that it appeared to have relied on ex facie fabricated photographs and prima facie non-confirming invoices before the Registrar of Trademarks to support its user claim over the mark ‘MY WATER BOX’.

Taking serious note of the prima facie unethical conduct of both the parties, court held:

"The invoices of the parties, which contain non-confirming content, cannot be accepted as correct at this interim stage, and parties will be put to strict proof to prove these invoices at trial."

Moreover, while observing that the wordmark 'WATERBOX' is akin to 'WATERBOTTLE’ (literally meaning ‘water in the box’), and therefore, it is non-distinctive and incapable of distinguishing the product, court held that at the stage of final disposal of the suit, it will also have to decide whether the appellant and respondent are capable of distinguishing their products and their rival marks.

The dispute and the appeal

The dispute relates to the appellant's use of the marks "MORE THAN WATERBOX", "WATERBOX" and related branding for packaged drinking water sold in tetra packs. The company claimed that it and its predecessor, M/s. Meera Enterprises had been using the marks since 2018 and alleged that NESCO's "MY WATER BOX" mark, along with its wave device and trade dress, was deceptively similar and likely to confuse consumers.

Earlier, the single judge bench of the high court had refused to restrain NESCO across India after finding that the appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case of goodwill and reputation.

At the same time, the single judge had directed both companies to continue using their respective marks only within their existing territories, Gujarat for the appellant and Maharashtra for the respondent, during the pendency of the suit. Both parties challenged that order before the division bench.

Goodwill essential in passing off claims

While examining the appeal, the division bench reiterated that an appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the commercial court unless the discretion exercised is arbitrary, capricious, perverse or contrary to settled legal principles.

The bench agreed with the single judge's conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish goodwill or reputation in its marks. It noted that the invoices relied upon to show use from 2018 appeared doubtful, there was no continuous commercial use for a considerable period, the sales figures were modest, and the promotional expenditure was insufficient to establish market recognition. Court also noted inconsistencies in the appellant's trademark applications and evidence relating to prior use.

The bench went further and held that the appellant had relied upon prima facie manipulated invoices. It observed that the invoices carried an HSN code wholly inapplicable to packaged drinking water and that the appellant admitted it did not possess GST returns supporting those invoices. According to the court, these circumstances justified treating the documents as unreliable at the interim stage.

Court also found that the appellant had made misleading submissions regarding its Central FSSAI licence. Although it argued that it had applied for such a licence to justify pan-India sales, the bench noted that the application had already been rejected before the appeal was argued and that this fact had not been disclosed. The conduct, it said, disentitled the appellant from discretionary interim relief because a litigant seeking equity must approach the court with clean hands.

Court also questions the respondent's evidence.

It observed that NESCO had relied upon ex facie fabricated photographs before the Registrar of Trademarks to support its user claim for the period 2021-25. The court further found that invoices produced before the Registrar for the period 2020-23 did not record commercial sales, as they mentioned quantities of products but not their prices.

It described the respondent's conduct in relying upon fabricated photographs and unreliable invoices as "equally deplorable" and observed that the registration appeared to have been secured on that basis.

Accordingly, the division bench directed that NESCO shall not rely upon Trademark Registration No. 6879596 against any third party, including the appellant, until it proves the authenticity of the photographs and invoices relied upon before the Registrar.

It added that if those documents are ultimately found to be fake, appropriate directions would be issued for removal of the registration and initiation of perjury proceedings against the respondent's officers.

Court similarly observed that if the appellant's invoices are ultimately found to be fake, appropriate perjury proceedings shall also be taken against its officers.

The division bench also set aside the territorial restraints imposed by the single judge on both parties. However, it cautioned the appellant that any sale of its products outside Gujarat must be permissible under law and must not violate the terms of its FSSAI licence.

Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, assisted by Advocate Anirudh Bhatia, appeared for the appellant, More Than Water Private Limited.

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, along with Advocates Naqeeb Nawab, Sanandika Pratap Singh, Prakhar Singh, Vibhav Singh, B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu and Purnima Vashishtha, represented the respondent, NESCO Limited.

Case Title: More Than Water Private Limited v. NESCO Limited

Order Date: July 1, 2026

Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora