ORDER :

1. This Judgement/order will now dispose of captioned main suit, namely C.S (Comm.Div.) No.208 of 2022 and will consequently dispose of the captioned applications.

2. Captioned main suit along with captioned applications is listed today in the Motion Board before this Commercial Division. Mr.A.Prabhakara Reddy, learned counsel assisted by Mr.A.Prasanna Venkat of M/s.APR Associates (Law Firm) for the sole plaintiff-company, which is the applicant in the captioned applications (obviously as the matter is in Motion Board) is before this Commercial Division.

3. Learned counsel, adverting to the plaint and the plaint documents submits that the main suit has been filed inter alia with prayers for injunction qua alleged infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks qua textiles (lungies, handkerchiefs, etc.,) besides prayers for injunctions qua alleged infringement of copyright, surrender of alleged offending material, rendition of accounts, costs and the usual residuary limb of further or other orders.

4. Learned counsel for plaintiff-company has multiple trademark registrations primarily under Classes 24 and 25 of the relevant Schedule/Rules qua 'The Trademarks Act, 1999' [hereinafter 'TM Act' for the sake of brevity and convenience] pertaining to fabrics, clothing etc., Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff came to know about alleged infringing activities of the defendants i.e., activity of applying deceptively similar marks on their products, owing to which instant suit has been launched.

5. This Commercial Division wanted to know from learned counsel for plaintiff about the requirement under Section 12-A of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (4 of 2016)' [hereinafter 'CCA' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity]. In response to this query of this Commercial Division regarding Section 12-A of CCA, learned counsel for plaintiff made submissions, a summation of which is as follows:

a) Plaintiff has taken out an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner (A.No.4296 of 2022, i.e., one of the captioned applications) with prayers for seizing the offending materials and this by itself demonstrates urgency qua interlocutory reliefs;

b) A perusal of Section 135 of TM Act will make it clear that there is a provision under the TM Act for grant of ex parte injunctions, interim orders, more particularly vide sub-section (2) of Section 135 of TM Act and therefore, this answers Section 12- A;

c) The offending products are being sold in complete contravention of 'The Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011', being Rules made by Central Government by exercise of rule making power under the parent statute concerned;

d) Interestingly and intriguingly it was submitted that Section 12-A of CCA is not attracted qua the captioned suit;

e) It was submitted that if the defendants are called for mediation, other similar alleged infringers (referred to as 'fly-by-night operators' by learned counsel) would also vanish from the market and plaintiff will not be able to prosecute such alleged infringers.

6. This Court carefully considered the aforementioned submissions made by learned counsel for plaintiff in response to the query regarding requirement qua Section 12-A of CCA which was put to the learned counsel by this Commercial Division with specificity. This Commercial Division after carefully considering the submissions in the light of Section 12-A of CCA and elucidation of the same by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028 [inter alia holding that Section 12-A is mandatory] has no hesitation in applying Patil Automation principle/ratio and coming to the conclusion that the plaint in the captioned matter is liable to be rejected. The discussion and dispositive reasoning i.e., reasons are as follows:

(i) When CCA kicked in on 23.10.2015, there was no Section 12-A. Section 12-A of CCA was introduced on and from