N THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT) AT NORTH-WEST DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CIVIL SUIT (COMMERCIAL) NO. ___ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Vestal Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013,
Having its registered office at CSC 9, Naharpur Village Road,
Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi – 110085,
Through its Managing Director & Authorized Representative
Mr. Kamal Khanna
… Plaintiff
VERSUS
Baxium Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
Having its principal place of business at 2nd Floor, Hall Bazar,
Amritsar – 143001, Punjab, India
… Defendant
PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 CPC READ WITH
SECTIONS 134 & 135 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT,
1999, AND SECTION 6 OF THE COMMERCIAL
COURTS ACT, 2015, SEEKING PERMANENT
INJUNCTION, DAMAGES, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS,
DELIVERY UP FOR DESTRUCTION OF INFRINGING
GOODS, AND RELIEFS FOR DEFAMATION AND
HARASSMENT
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. Jurisdiction
1.1 This Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit under
Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as the Plaintiff is carrying on business, maintains
its registered office, and is commercially active within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court at Rohini, Delhi.
1.2 The Defendant’s infringing activities, although conducted in Amritsar and other markets,
have a direct impact on the Plaintiff’s business and reputation at Delhi, where the Plaintiff
controls its business operations.
1.3 The pecuniary value of this suit exceeds ₹3,00,000/- and falls within the jurisdiction of the
Commercial Court at the District Judge Level under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2. The Plaintiff and its Trademark Rights
2.1 The Plaintiff is the lawful proprietor and prior user of the registered trademark "OXIGEM-
Q10", enjoying statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and extensive goodwill in the
pharmaceutical and healthcare industry across India.
2.2 The Plaintiff’s trademark is distinctive, well-known among consumers, and entitled to strong
protection under law.
3. The Defendant’s Infringing Activities
3.1 The Defendant, without authorization, is manufacturing, marketing, and selling
pharmaceutical products under marks “OXEGEM Q10” and “OXEEGEM Q10”, deceptively
and phonetically similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark "OXIGEM-Q10".
3.2 Such activities amount to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999, as well as passing off, causing irreparable injury to the Plaintiff’s goodwill.
4. Previous Incidents and Continuing Infringement
4.1 The Defendant is a habitual infringer; previous acts of infringement caused financial losses
of ₹30,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
4.2 Despite issuance of a legal notice dated 22/05/2025, the Defendant failed to comply and
continues infringement.
5. Acts of Defamation and Harassment
5.1 The Defendant’s employees have previously engaged in acts of defamation and harassment
against Mr. Kamal Khanna, Plaintiff’s Managing Director, causing professional and personal
damage.
5.2 Such actions further aggravate the Plaintiff’s claim and justify the grant of aggravated
damages and injunctive relief.
6. Cause of Action
6.1 The cause of action first arose when the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant’s infringing
goods in the market.
6.2 It continues to arise as the Defendant persists in infringement, adversely impacting the
Plaintiff’s business headquartered in Delhi.
7. Reliefs Sought
The Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Grant a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using the trademarks
“OXEGEM Q10”, “OXEEGEM Q10”, or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s
trademark “OXIGEM-Q10”;
b) Order the Defendant to deliver up all infringing goods, packaging, promotional materials,
and advertising matter for destruction;
c) Direct the Defendant to render accounts of profits earned from the infringing activities and
pay such profits to the Plaintiff;
d) Award damages to the Plaintiff to the tune of ₹40,00,000/- for trademark infringement, loss
of business, and defamation;
e) Grant an injunction restraining the Defendant from any further acts of defamation or
harassment against Mr. Kamal Khanna or any representative of the Plaintiff;
f) Award costs of the present proceedings;
g) Pass such other order(s) as deemed just and proper.
8. Valuation
The relief for injunction is valued at ₹5,00,000/- and damages at ₹40,00,000/-, making the total
valuation ₹45,00,000/- for jurisdiction and court fee purposes.
9. Limitation
The suit is within limitation as the Defendant’s infringing acts are continuing and ongoing.
PRAYER
In light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the
reliefs set out in Para 7, along with any other order(s) deemed fit in the interest of justice.
VERIFICATION
I, Kamal Khanna, Managing Director and Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff, do hereby
verify that the contents of this plaint are true and correct to my knowledge and belief.
Place: Delhi
Date: [Date]
Plaintiff
Through Counsel
[Advocate Name, Enrollment No.
