Update Case Entry

Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.

Case Lawsuit Title *

Case / Trial ID Number

Jurisdiction Code *

Category *

Filing Date

Decision Verdict Date

Court / Tribunal

Bench / Panel Judges

Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)

Respondent / Defendant

Dispute Summary

Outcome / Ruling

Verdict Document PDF URL

Full text judgment

[Cites
6
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S House Of Diagnostics Llp & Ors vs Home Of Diagnostics Limited on 21 April, 2026
Author:
Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench:
Tushar Rao Gedela
$~36
              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
              +         CS(COMM) 416/2026

M/S HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS LLP & ORS.           .....Plaintiffs
                                      Through: Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Ms. Aamna Hasan,
                                               Ms. Anupriya Shyam, Mr. Aarya
                                               Deshmukh and Ms. Vaibhavi SG,
                                               Advocates.
                                      versus

HOME OF DIAGNOSTICS LIMITED                                                               .....Defendant
                                     Through:

CORAM:
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                                      ORDER
%                                       21.04.2026
              I.A. 10880/2026 (Additional Documents)
1.        The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
              Order XI Rule 1(4)
of the Code of Civil Procedure
, 1908 ('
CPC
') as applicable
              to commercial suits under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
('
CC Act
') seeking
              leave to place on record additional documents.
2.        The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance
              with the provisions of the
CC Act
and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
              Rules, 2018.
3.        Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
              I.A. 10878/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
4.        This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from
              instituting pre-litigation mediation under
Section 12A
of the CC Act.
5.        As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
              judgment of the Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi
:
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 1 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
              mediation is granted.
6.        The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10879/2026 (Exemption from filing original documents)
7.        This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Section 151
of CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents of copies at page
              nos.22-24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 along with the captioned suit.
8.        Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, the said
              original documents with proper margins be filed within four weeks with an
              advance copy to the defendant.
9.        The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10881/2026 (Exemption)
10.       This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Section 151
of CPC seeking exemption from filing clearer/legible documents along with the
              captioned suit.
11.       Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true
              typed/translated/clear copies of the documents with proper margins be filed
              within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendant.
12.       The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10882/2026 (Urgent listing alongwith affidavit)
13.       This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Section 151
of CPC for urgent listing.
14.       Since the matter has been listed today for consideration, the application
              has been rendered infructuous.
15.       The application stands disposed of as such.
I.A. 10877/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2,
CPC
)
16.       Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order
              XXXIX Rules 1 & 2
of CPC
, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 2 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               against the defendant.
17.       The plaintiffs are a part of HOD Group comprising of three sister
              concerns - plaintiff no.1/House of Diagnostics, plaintiff no.2/HOD Healthcare
              Pvt. Ltd. and plaintiff no.3/House of Diagnostics Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., which
              are being managed by the members of the same family. The plaintiffs claim to
              be a well-established and reputed organization and well-known for providing
              quality, reliable and affordable diagnostic services and are focused towards
              attaining and benchmarking best industry standards with respect to their
              medical diagnostics services. The plaintiffs provide an extensive range of
              medical, health diagnostics, pathology, radiology, therapy and allied and
              connected services including but not limited to 3T MRI, CT Scan, Whole body
              PET-CT, Gamma Camera, Ultrasound, X-Ray, DEXA, Mammography,
              Uroflowmetry Test, Echocardiography, Neurology tests, etc.
18.       It is claimed that the plaintiffs, in the year 2008, honestly and bona fide,
              conceived and adopted the trademark HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS/HOD/

/                           for their goods and services. Subsequently, in
              the year 2013, the plaintiff no.1 adopted the trademark 'H.O.D.' as a part of its
              corporate name which has been in use since, as a word mark per se as well as a
              label mark and other variants. Plaintiffs claim to use the trademark
              HOD/H.O.D as a label mark in a highly distinctive manner, as depicted
              hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 3 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
19.       The details of the registrations and applications filed by the plaintiffs for
              the HOD trademarks are enumerated hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 4 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
20.       Plaintiffs claim that they are the original conceiver, adopter and user of
              the artistic works in HOD/House of Diagnostics labels. It is claimed that the
              unique manner of representation of the plaintiffs' H.O.D trademarks have been
              created by the plaintiffs and under their instructions, for them exclusively and
              constitute original works under the
Copyright Act, 1957
. The details of the
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 5 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               copyright applications are as below:-
21.       Plaintiffs claim to have been continuously and openly using the
              aforesaid distinctive artist works as well as trademarks which are exclusively
              associated and identified with the plaintiffs by the public at large.
22.       The plaintiffs claim to be the registered proprietor of the domain name
              www.houseofdiagnostics.com                            since         the         year         2012            and   of
              https://www.hod.care/ since the year 2017. Furthermore, the plaintiffs are
              actively promoting and advertising their goods and services on various social
              media platforms including Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and
              YouTube as well as through Google Ads. The plaintiffs claim to be running
              around 50 centres in major cities of North India as well as 150+ collection
              centres in and around Delhi NCR region and the trademarks H.O.D. are
              prominently displayed on all the branches of its diagnostics centres.
23.       In the year 2022, the plaintiffs launched their mobile app by the name
              'H.O.D' for streamlining booking tests, health packages etc., which is available
              on both iOS and Android platforms. The plaintiffs also claim to be accorded
              with certifications and recognitions such as NABL accreditation and NABH
              accreditation.
24.       It is claimed that the continuous, extensive and long use of the plaintiffs'
              H.O.D trademarks for their goods and services have resulted in significant
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 6 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               amount of sales, the details of which are enumerated hereunder:-
25.       The plaintiffs claim to have advertised, marketed and promoted the
              H.O.D trademarks for their goods and services through both electronic and
              print media as well as internet. The year wise expenditure on promotion of the
              goods and services under the plaintiffs' H.O.D trademarks are mentioned
              hereunder:-
26.       Plaintiffs claim to be vigilant about their rights in their intellectual
              property including the H.O.D trademarks and copyright therein which have
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 7 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               been recognized and acknowledged by this Court in FAO 235/2019 and
              CS(COMM) 869/2023.
27.       It is claimed that the goods and services of the plaintiffs are highly
              demanded amongst the public on account of their high-quality diagnostic and
              pathology services which are value-priced, along with highly skilled and
              qualified radiologists, technicians & doctors and state-of-the-art technology
              ensuring a higher quality of services, accuracy and reliability. It is further
              claimed that the plaintiffs are a market leader and besides maintaining excellent
              quality of their goods and services under the H.O.D trademarks, they lay
              immense emphasis on research & development and innovation to consistently
              improve the quality of goods and services and thereby expand their customer
              base. Thus, it is stated that the plaintiffs' H.O.D trademarks have acquired
              distinctiveness and are identifiable and associated with the plaintiffs only.
28.       It is stated that the defendant company was incorporated on 08.11.2019
              and appears to be engaged in the business of providing diagnostics services

under          an       almost          identical          trademark                                          /HOD
              DIAGNOSTICS/HOME OF DIAGNOSTICS, as that of the plaintiffs' H.O.D
              trademarks. The plaintiffs claim that in and around March, 2026, the plaintiffs
              came across the listing of the defendant's diagnostic centre being under the
              impugned mark at Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on the e-commerce platform of
              IndiaMart. As per the information available therein, the defendant claims to be
              providing identical services as the plaintiffs, of diagnostic centres, pathology
              services, mammography, Ultrasound, Dental imaging, MRI scan, blood test,
              CT scan and the like. The defendant also claims to have a branch office in Hari
              Nagar, Delhi.
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 8 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
29.       The plaintiffs have also come across the defendant's listing on social
              media platform such as Instagram and on www.diagnosticcentres.in wherein
              the defendant is advertising its diagnostic centre under the impugned mark
              being run in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. It is claimed that during the investigation,
              the plaintiffs came across the trademark application no.4989472 dated
              31.05.2021 filed in the name of Mr. Ram Bhajan Singh, one of the directors of

the defendant company, for the impugned mark                                                           / HOME OF
              DIAGNOSTICS in Class-44, claiming use since 17.12.2019. The plaintiffs
              assert that the said application of the defendant has been refused under
Section
              11(1)
of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Trade Marks Registry vide order
              dated 08.03.2024 on the grounds of likelihood of confusion with the cited mark
              being the plaintiffs' prior registered trademark no.2297849 for the mark H.O.D
              HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS.
30.       Plaintiffs claim to have addressed a legal notice dated 18.03.2025 to the
              defendant calling upon it to change its trade name and remove any reference to
              the deceptively similar impugned mark, labels and other materials from all
              websites. However, no response has been received by the plaintiffs.
31.       Plaintiffs contend that the defendant is free riding upon the hard-earned
              goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs' H.O.D trademarks. Moreover, the
              plaintiffs and the defendant are in the same field of business catering to
              identical consumers which will surely result in confusion and deception in the
              minds of the public at large who will assume a connection or association
              between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
32.       Predicated thereon, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is being sought
              against the defendant.
33.       Having perused the plaint, and the documents annexed therewith and
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 9 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court is of
              the considered opinion that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would be in
              order.
34.       At the outset, it would be relevant to consider the comparative chart of
              the two rival marks:-
35.       On a bare perusal of the rival marks, the deceptive similarities are more
              than apparent. The mark 'HOD' of the defendant is identical with the registered
              mark 'H.O.D' of the plaintiffs, except the mark of the defendant does not have
              the dots between the three letters. Even the underlying superscript 'Home of
              Diagnostics' of the defendant is deceptively similar to 'House of Diagnostics'
              of the plaintiff. The style and manner of writing and presentation of the letters
              HOD and the underlying superscript is likely to confuse or deceive the
              consumer into believing that the goods and services provided by the defendant
              are either that of the plaintiff or are associated with the plaintiff. What is to be
              considered are the similarities between the marks and from the stand point of an
              ordinary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
36.       Apart from the above, both the parties are providing the same services,
              i.e., diagnostics etc. and thus, the likelihood of confusion is higher since the
              consumers would be common. The plaintiffs have their marks registered and
              appear to have garnered substantial goodwill and considerable reputation over
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               the years, which is demonstrable from its sales turnover and expenditure on
              advertisements and promotion.
37.          Thus, evidently, the plaintiff has been able to prima facie establish a
              strong case in its favour and against the defendant. Having regard to the
              observations in the preceding paragraphs, the balance of convenience is in
              favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury
              which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case ex-parte
              ad-interim injunction orders are not passed against the defendant.
38.          In view of the aforesaid, the following directions are passed:-
(i)       The defendant, its partners or proprietors, officers, servants, agents,
                              their assigns in business, dealers and others associated with it are
                              restrained          from         using         the      impugned             trademark         HOD

DIAGNOSTICS/Home                          of          Diagnostics/                                  /

, or any other mark, name, logo, monogram or label
                              that is or may be identical with or deceptively similar to the trade
                              name and registered trademark H.O.D/HOUSE OF DIAGNOSTICS/

/                          /                           /
                              of the plaintiffs, or to market, sell, offer for sale, license, advertise,
                              directly or indirectly deal in any identical and/or allied or cognate
                              goods of the plaintiffs under such trademarks;
(ii)      The defendant is directed to immediately remove all listings under
                              the impugned mark from all websites and social media platforms
                              including              but          not           limited            to           IndiaMart        -
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 11 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
                              http://www.indiamart.com/hod-diagnostics/,                                      Instagram           -
                             http://www.instagram.com/hoddiagnostics/ and Diagnostic centres -
                             www.diagnosticcentres.in;
39.       Issue notice.
40.       Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendant within four weeks
              from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
41.       Compliance of
Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC
shall be done within ten
              days from date.
CS(COMM) 416/2026
42.       Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
43.       Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendant
              through all permissible modes.
44.       The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the
              defendant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith
              the Written Statement, the defendant shall also file Affidavit of
              Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiffs, without which the Written
              Statement shall not be taken on record.
45.       Liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to file Replication, if any, within 30
              days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication
              filed by the plaintiffs, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of
              defendant be filed by the plaintiffs, without which the Replication shall not be
              taken on record.
46.       In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their
              power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of
              reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
47.       If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same
              shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
48.       List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 20.07.2026 for completion of
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 12 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34
               service and pleadings.
49.       List before the Court on 28.09.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
              APRIL 21, 2026/anj
CS(COMM) 416/2026                                                                                      Page 13 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:34

Cancel