The court established that the plaintiff's established goodwill and the likelihood of consumer confusion justified granting an interim injunction against the defendant's use of an identical trademark.

ORDER :

I.A. 8191/2025- Pre-institution mediation

1. Vide the present application filed under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), the plaintiff seeks exemption from pre-litigation mediation.

2. Considering the averments made in the present application, as also since the plaintiff is simultaneously seeking ex parte ad interim injunction, and in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2024 (5) SCC 815, which has been followed by a Division Bench this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R. A. Perfumery Works Private Limited, 2022:DHC:4454-DB, the plaintiff is exempted from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

3. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

I.A. 8190/2025-Exp

4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

5. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 8189/2025-Addl.doc.

6. Vide the present application filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) read with Section 151 of the CPC, the plaintiff seeks leave of this Court to file additional documents.

7. The plaintiff will be at liberty to file additional documents at a later stage, albeit, after initiating appropriate steps, strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of the CPC and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

8. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

9. The plaintiff seeks a decree of permanent injunction and damages for infringement and passing off of its registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act of 1999’) against the defendant herein.

10. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

11. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendant through all permissible modes returnable before the Joint Registrar on 13.08.2025.

12. Needless to say, it shall be specified in the summons that the written statement(s) shall be filed by each of the defendants within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the summons. Written statement(s) shall be accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

13. Replication(s) thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of written statement(s). The said replication(s), if any, shall also be accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents filed by the defendants, without which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record within the aforesaid period of fifteen days.

14. If, and when, any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any document(s), the same shall be sought and given within the requisite timelines.

15. List before the Joint Registrar for marking exhibits of documents on 13.08.2025. It is made clear that if any party unjustifiably denies any document(s), then such party would be liable to be burdened with costs.

I.A. 8188/2025-O XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPC ad interim injunction

16. By virtue of the present application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, the plaintiff seeks to restrain the defendant and all persons acting for or on his behalf from using or dealing in any goods under the impugned mark ‘SUJATA’/ , or any other mark which is identical/ deceptively similar to the registered and well-known trademark of the plaintiff/ .

17. As per pleadings before this Court and arguments addressed in support thereof by the learned counsel for plaintiff, the case of the plaintiff is as under:-

17.1. The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of various electrical products and home appliances such as juicer, mixer, grinder, heating/ cooling appliances, etc.since the year 1979-1980.

17.2. The above operations were initiated by the plaintiff’s predecessor, and have since been carried out under the registered and well-known trademark ‘SUJATA’ which has become a prominent ho