The Delhi High Court is examining whether &ldquo;Pudin Hara,&rdquo; a name long associated with Dabur&rsquo;s digestive remedy, is an invented Ayurvedic brand label exclusive to the company or a term that others can freely use. The issue has surfaced after Dabur asked the Court to cancel a trademark granted to Wellford Pharma for the name &ldquo;Welford Pudin Hara.&rdquo;
The dispute places Dabur&rsquo;s 90-year-old product identity at the center of a heated branding battle. Justice Tejas Karia heard the matter on Tuesday and has reserved the request for temporary orders.
Dabur argues that &ldquo;Pudin Hara&rdquo; is not a generic phrase, but a coined brand name that the company has used since 1930. It highlighted that it applied for trademark protection in 1979 and has built strong consumer recognition over decades.
According to Dabur, the name has become so closely linked to its product that allowing another pharmaceutical company to add the same words to its own label would confuse buyers. The company&rsquo;s team pointed to a search that showed 29 trademarks containing the term &ldquo;Pudin Hara,&rdquo; of which 27 belonged to Dabur. The remaining two, including Wellford Pharma&rsquo;s registration, were described as near copies.
Dabur claims that Wellford Pharma simply attached its own name to the front while lifting the rest of Dabur&rsquo;s brand identity. Since both companies sell medicinal products, Dabur says it is impossible that Wellford was unaware of the established brand.
The company also emphasised that &ldquo;Pudin Hara&rdquo; is consumed by both children and adults. Any mix-up between similar products, it said, could harm public trust and potentially affect health.
Dabur added that Wellford Pharma&rsquo;s registration was granted based on an intention to use the name in the future, and that there is no indication the rival has actually sold anything under the disputed label.
Dabur has requested that the trademark not only be cancelled but also temporarily restricted so that it cannot be transferred or sold while the dispute is ongoing.
&ldquo;We are the prior registered owners,&rdquo; Dabur&rsquo;s counsel said, arguing that two nearly identical product names in the same category would only mislead buyers.

Is ‘Pudin Hara’ Only Dabur’s? Court to Decide

Dabur challenges rival use of “Pudin Hara,” claiming the name belongs solely to its brand

Is ‘Pudin Hara’ Only Dabur’s? Court to Decide

Dabur challenges rival use of “Pudin Hara,” claiming the name belongs solely to its brand

December 10, 2025 | 02:06 IST