The Delhi High Court has granted UPL Limited and UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited an ex parte ad-interim injunction against Agro Orbit Hub Pvt Ltd., restraining it from selling or promoting agrochemical products under UPL’s trademarks without authorisation and the required Principal Certificate under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Despite Agro Orbit’s claim of being an intermediary, the Court noted that it was itself offering the disputed products for sale and promoting them through ‘Popular Brand’ and ‘Flash Deals’ sections on its platform.
The Court found that UPL had established registered trademark rights, long and continuous use, and goodwill and reputation. The defendants’ sales were prima facie dishonest and aimed at exploiting that reputation to cause market confusion. Products bearing UPL’s marks were also found stocked at its Lucknow premises during inspection. Agro Orbit failed to produce a Principal Certificate issued by UPL, prompting a Stop Sale Notice.
Briefly, UPL Limited and UPL Sustainable Agri Solutions Limited sued Agro Orbit Hub Pvt Ltd. and unidentified persons for alleged infringement and passing off of their agrochemical trademarks. The plaintiffs alleged that Agro Orbit was selling and promoting unauthorised and counterfeit products through its website and mobile application.
According to their submissions, an inspection at Agro Orbit’s Lucknow premises on 24 July 2026 found products bearing the plaintiffs’ marks, but the company failed to produce a Principal Certificate issued by the plaintiffs, resulting in a Stop Sale Notice. The plaintiffs sought urgent interim protection against these activities.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia found that the plaintiffs had established trademark rights, long and continuous use, and goodwill and reputation. It observed that, although Agro Orbit claimed to be an intermediary, the material showed that it was itself offering the disputed products for sale and actively promoting them through its “Popular Brand” and “Flash Deals” sections.
The Court also relied on the inspection findings and failure to produce a Principal Certificate to conclude, prima facie, that the defendants were dealing in infringing products without the plaintiffs’ authorisation and without the licence and Principal Certificate required under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, read with Rule 10(4A) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
The Court found that the defendants’ sale of the disputed products prima facie sought to take advantage of the plaintiffs’ goodwill and could confuse consumers into associating those products with the plaintiffs. This risked eroding consumer trust and diluting the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation. The plaintiffs had therefore established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience favoured granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction.
