Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Bolt Technology Ou - Appellant
Versus
Ujoy Technology Private Limited - Respondent
CS (COMM) 582 of 2022 & I.As. 13529-32 of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2022
Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates mediation unless urgent interim relief is sought, which must be evaluated based on the specific nature of the case.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Interim injunction sought for trademark infringement - Plaintiff claims registered trademark 'BOLT' in relation to mobility services. Defendants allegedly using identical mark. - Urgent interim relief permitted without pre-litigation mediation due to the nature of the request. Court emphasized the importance of urgency in intellectual property disputes. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 12, 15, 26)
(B) Legal obligation for pre-litigation mediation - Pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A is mandatory unless urgent relief is sought; Court emphasized necessity for mediation in disputes not involving urgent relief. (Paras 7, 11, 23)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, an Estonia-based company, alleges Defendants' use of 'BOLT' infringes their registered trademark and seeks urgent injunction stopping Defendants from using the mark. Plaintiff argues its reputation as a global leader in mobility is at risk.
Issues: The court addressed whether the Plaintiff's suit required exhaustion of mediation under Section 12A and the nature of 'urgent relief'.
Findings of Court:
The requirement of Section 12A is satisfied; the urgent nature of Plaintiff's relief and the Defendants’ unwillingness to mediate do not warrant mediation under Section 12A. Costs imposed on the Defendants for non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: Urgent interim relief justified even in cases of trademark rights; mediation is vital but not indispensable where urgency is clearly established. (Paras 26, 34)
Result: Preliminary objection of Defendants rejected; costs awarded against Defendants; suit registered.
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.As.13531/2022, 13532/2022 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. I.A.13531/2022 and I.A.13532/2022 are disposed of.
I.A.13530/2022 (u/S 12A of CCA)
3. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation, in accordance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter, "CCA").
4. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - Bolt Technology OU seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, passing off of trademark, infringement of copyright, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, and other reliefs. The Plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of the mark `BOLT' used in relation to ride-hailing, food and grocery delivery, rental of cars, e-bikes and scooters, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations/docks, worldwide. The Plaintiff has obtained various registrations for the mark `BOLT' in several jurisdictions and the details of the same are set out in the Plaint. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are using the identical mark `BOLT', along with the logo thereof, in relation to an identical business of provision of charging points for EVs. The competing logos used by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are depicted below:
| Plaintiff's Marks | Defendants' Marks |
| BOLT | BOLT |
 |  |
5. As set out in the Plaint, the Plaintiff is an Estonia-based company and claims to be a global market leader in transportation and mobility services that include vehicles for hire, micro mobility, car-sharing, Electric Vehicle charging stations/docks and various food and grocery delivery services, etc. It operates in more than 400 cities in over 45 countries in Europe, Africa, Western Asia, South and Latin America. The Plaintiff also claims to have more than 100 million customers globally and more than 2.5 million drivers are stated to be using the `BOLT' Driver platform to offer rides. The Plaintiff claims reputation in the mark `BOLT' and the logo thereof, which was adopted by it in the year 2018. As per the Plaintiff, the mark `BOLT' is not only used as a trademark but is also an essential feature of the corporate name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff advertises and promotes its services through its website, namely `https://bolt.eu/' which can be accessed worldwide, as also, various social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and Twitter. The Plaintiff's mobile application under the mark `BOLT' is available, both on the Google Play Store and Apple App Store. A search for the mark `BOLT' on the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store shows the competing applications of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The two competing applications, as shown in the search results, are reflected as under:
6. Ms. Sukumar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendants are using the identical mark `BOLT' with an identical colour scheme for the business of Electric Vehicle charging points, which is similar to one of the services provided by the Plaintiff. She submits that the use of the mark `BOLT' by the Defendants is completely violative of the global reputation and goodwill which has been acquired by the Plaintiff, and would constitute passing off. She further submits that the Plaintiff has around 100 registrations in more than 50 countries. Accordingly, an urgent interim injunction is sought in the matter.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Naman Maheshwari, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendants has raised a preliminary objection seeking rejection of the Plaint for non-compliance of Section 12A of the CCA. Reliance is placed upon the following judgments:
i. Judgment of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, Civil Appeal Nos.5333-34/2022 decided on 17th August, 2022, to argue that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of CCA is manda
