IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
Valuedrive Technologies Private Limited - Plaintiff
versus
Vivo Mobile India Private Limited - Defendant
CS(COMM) 276 of 2025, I.A. 8120 of 2025, I.A. 8121 of 2025, I.A. 8122 of 2025, I.A. 8123 of 2025, I.A. 8124 of 2025 & I.A. 8125 of 2025
Decided on : 28-03-2025
ORDER :
I.A. 8122/2025 (exemption from filing original/certified/translated/clear copies of documents)
1. Allowed, subject to plaintiff filing translated/clear copies of documents within four (4) weeks.
2. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 8121/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act)
3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
4. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 8125/2025 (seeking time for filing the request certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023
6. This application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking time for filing the request certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023.
7. For the reasons stated in the application, four (4) weeks’ time is granted to file the aforesaid certificate.
8. Application stands disposed of. I.A. 8123/2025 (u/s 149 of the CPC)
9. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Court fee has been applied for and shall be placed on record within one (1) week.
9.1. Statement of counsel is taken on record.
10. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 8124/2025 (u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015)
11. As the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC Online SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted.
12. The application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 276/2025 I.A. 8120/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
13. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
14. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the present application.
15. Ms. Julien George, Advocate accepts summons in the suit and notice in the application on behalf of the defendant and waives issuance of formal summons.
16. Written statement to the suit and reply to the application shall be filed by the defendant within thirty days from today. Along with the written statement, the defendant shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
17. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication, if any, within thirty days from the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication filed by the plaintiff, affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the defendant be filed by the plaintiff.
18. Rejoinder, if any, to the reply to the application filed by the defendant, shall be filed within two weeks after the receipt of such reply.
19. The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
20. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
21. List before the Joint Registrar on 7th May, 2025, for completion of service and pleadings.
22. List before the Court on 15th September, 2025.
Exemption from pre-institution mediation granted due to urgency; timelines established for filing documents and responses under the Commercial Courts Act.
The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowed filing of additional documents due to the urgent nature of the suit, emphasizing procedural compliance.
The court established that a prima facie case for relief exists when trademark infringement is evident, justifying ex parte interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm.
The court upheld that protecting registered trademarks from potentially infringing use requires establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.