Delhi HC Fines Trademark Infringer for Contemptuous Conduct

The Delhi High Court has delivered a stern message regarding the sanctity of court-appointed officials, ordering Kartar Industries to pay significant penalties following a violent obstruction of justice during a trademark enforcement raid. The case, Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. v. Kartar Industries , underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting the authority of Local Commissioners in intellectual property disputes.

Case Background

The dispute arose when plaintiffs Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Kartar Industries for the unauthorized use of their registered ‘HERO’ trademarks. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was engaged in the manufacturing and sale of infringing goods, leading the Court to pass an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on September 11, 2025.

To verify the allegations, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant’s premises and document any violation of the injunction. However, the execution of the commission was far from orderly.

Anatomy of an Obstruction

During the visit to the premises, the situation descended into hostility. According to the court documents, the defendant, Seema Sood, and her associates aggressively confronted the legal team. The court noted that the defendant’s personnel intimidated the Local Commissioner and the plaintiffs' counsel, physically manhandling them. In a brazen attempt to destroy evidence, infringing packaging and spare parts were set ablaze in a metal burner while the Commissioner watched.

Legal Analysis and Decision

While the defendant later sought to distance herself from the reported conduct, eventually withdrawing objections to the Commissioner’s report and tendering an unconditional apology, the Court remained unmoved by the plea for leniency.

Justice Tejas Karia emphasized that a Local Commissioner is an extension of the Court itself. Interference with or threatening such an officer is a direct affront to the administration of justice. Recognizing that an apology alone could not purge the severity of the contempt, the Court invoked its powers to impose punitive measures.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling included several pointed observations regarding the behavior of litigants:

> “A Local Commissioner appointed by a Court is an officer of the Court and the Defendants cannot go scot-free after threatening an officer of the Court and interfering with the execution of the Commission.”

> “The Defendant / Contemnors, present in person, have sought an unconditional apology and submitted that they would not carry on the infringing activities, which is a mitigating circumstance… However, the contempt and conduct of the Defendant / Contemnors is of such a nature, which cannot absolve by them giving mere apology.”

> “In a case where the evidence is not led, the damages shall be notional and are to be granted on a reasonable and fair basis.”

Court’s Decision

The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, permanently restraining Kartar Industries from infringing the 'HERO' trademarks. Beyond the injunction, the defendant was ordered to pay ₹2,50,000 to HelpAge India as a penalty for the contemptuous conduct, and an additional ₹2,50,000 as damages to the plaintiffs to cover investigation and litigation costs.

This judgment serves as a cautionary tale for litigants: while settlement is encouraged, the court will not tolerate the intimidation of its officers or the destruction of evidence during the legal process. The ruling ensures that damages, even when assessed on a notional basis, reflect the gravity of the litigation, serving both a compensatory and a deterrent purpose in the protection of intellectual property rights.