Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6501
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
MR. PIRUZ KHAMBATTA & ANR. – Appellant
Versus
MR. NIKHIL VINOD SHAH, TRADING AS M/S. RASHMI TRADING CO. & ANR. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 105/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Prajjwal Kushwaha
For the Respondents: Mr. Shaurya Kumar
The court granted permanent injunction for trademark infringement and refused to contest; the suit is partially decreed.
Headnote:This judgment concerns a suit for permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement and passing off. The defendants did not contest the injunction request. The court decreed the injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing to compensation and destruction of infringing goods. The matter concerning additional reliefs is adjourned for further consideration. The suit stands partially decreed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. permanent injunction granted for trademark infringement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 2. compensation and removal of infringing goods agreed. (Para 6 , 7 , 11) |
| 3. remaining reliefs and out-of-court settlement proposed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
O R D E R
% 01.09.2025
1. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trademark, passing off, infringement of copyright, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and other ancillary reliefs.
Injunction vis-à-vis prayer 72(a)(b)(c) and (d)
2. Mr. Shaurya Kumar, learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, states on instructions that the Defendant does not contest the relief of permanent injunction prayed for in paragraphs 72(a), (b), (c), and (d) of the plaint.
3. He states that a decree of permanent injunction can be passed forthwith in terms thereof.
4. He states that with respect to compensation, the Defendant is willing to offer the Plaintiffs a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, including the Local Commissioner fees.
CS(COMM) 105/2025 Page 1 of 3
5. He states that the Defendant has already removed the infringing goods from circulation, and with respect to the seized goods which are lying on superdari, the Defendant will abide by the directions issued by the Court.
6. He further states that the Defendant will drain out the mustard oil, which is the content of the infringing products, and destroy the packaging.
He proposes that the destruction of packaging shall be carried out in the presence of a representative of the Plaintiffs.
7. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs seeks time to take instruction on the aforesaid offer made by the Defendant.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the relief of permanent injunction in terms of paragraph 72 (a), (b), (c), and (d) is decreed hereby in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
9. The Registry is directed to draw up a decree-sheet in terms thereof.
Injunction vis-à-vis prayer 72(e)
10. Learned counsel for the Defendant states that the Defendant has also taken down all its listings from all online platforms and therefore, the relief sought at paragraph 72 (e) also stands satisfied.
11. He states that in case there is any residual listing remaining, the Defendant will take down the same within two weeks.
He further states that if the Plaintiffs identify any residual listings, they may inform the Defendant, who will take appropriate steps to remove them forthwith.
12. The statement of the Defendant is taken on record, and prayer clause 72(e) of the plaint is also decreed hereby in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Drawing up of decree CS(COMM) 105/2025 Page 2 of 3
13. The registry is directed to draw up a decree in terms of paragraph 72 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant in terms of this order.
14. The suit stands partially decreed.
Injunction vis-à-vis 72(f)(g), and (h)
15. For the purposes of prayer 72 (f), (g), and (h), the matter will be taken up for consideration on the next date of hearing.
16. The Defendant is directed to place on record an affidavit of the proposal recorded in this order.
17. The parties are at liberty to explore an out-of-court settlement with respect to the remaining reliefs.
