2026:BHC-OS:2082 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 35022 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 11 OF 2025 Trackon Couriers Private Limited …Plaintiff Versus B. N. Srinivas …Defendant _______

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Anand Mohan, Alhan Kayser, Varsha Vasave i/b Avesh Kayser, for the Applicant/Plaintiff.

Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Ankit Tiwari i/b Shashipal Shankar, for Defendant.

_______

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

RESERVED ON : 19th DECEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd JANUARY 2026 JUDGMENT:

1. The Applicant/Plaintiff has, by way of the present Interim Application, sought the following substantive reliefs:

“(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendant by themselves and/or their partners and/or their proprietors and/or directors and/or servants and/or agents and officers and/or subsidiaries, sister concerns and/or dealers and/or any other person claiming through and/or under such Defendant, be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from in any manner using the Impugned Mark/name at Exhibit B hereto hereto and/or any other name or mark containing the words TRACK-ON or TRACKON and/or mark identical and/or deceptively or confusingly similar, in any manner whatsoever, so as to infringe the Plaintiff registered TRACKON Mark(s) at Exhibits C-1 to C-3 of the Plaint;

(b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendant by themselves and/or their partners and/or their proprietors and/or directors and/or servants and/or agents and officers and/or subsidiaries, sister concerns and/or dealers and/or any other person claiming through and/or under such Defendant, be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon'ble Court from passing off and/or enabling others to pass off their impugned Services and/or business or commercial activities as and for that of the Plaintiff by the use of the Impugned Mark set out at Exhibit B hereto and/or any other name or mark containing the words TRACK-ON or TRACKON and/or packaging identical and/or deceptively or confusingly similar, in any manner whatsoever, set out at Exhibits C-1 to C-3 hereto;

(d) For the cost of this suit;”

The Facts in Brief:

2. The Plaintiff is a company which, since the year 2002, has been engaged in the business of, inter alia, domestic courier services, international shipping, e- commerce logistics and supply chain management (“Plaintiff’s Services”). It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff has obtained registration of the following composite label marks, namely:

The above marks (collectively referred to as the “TRACKON Marks”) are all in Class 39, and all the said registrations are valid and subsisting. The Defendant has not assailed any of the aforesaid registrations.

3. It is the Plaintiff’s case that “TRACKON” was coined and adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 2002, and since then, on account of open, continuous, and extensive use of the Trackon Marks in relation to the Plaintiff’s services, the same have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation.

4. In the year 2016, the Plaintiff appointed the Defendant as its business associate for the purpose of offering and promoting the Plaintiff’s services in the regions of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Pursuant thereto, on 5th May 2016, the Plaintiff addressed a letter to the Defendant inter alia, setting out the terms and conditions on which the Defendant was authorised to conduct business under the name “M/S. TRACKON COURIERS & CARGO SERVICES” in the region of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. It is the Defendant’s case that this letter has been deliberately suppressed by the Plaintiff from the Plaint.

5. On 26th May 2016, the Defendant and his wife formed a partnership, inter alia, for the purpose of carrying on business under the name “TRACKON COURIERS & CARGO SERVICES”. It is not in dispute that the Defendant used TRACKON as p