Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
SAGA LIFESCIENCES LIMITED VS. RITS LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
CS(COMM) 1251/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ajay Amitabh Suman, Aviral Srivastava, Arpit Pundir
For the Respondents: None

An ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted in trademark infringement and passing off cases when the plaintiff demonstrates prior use of a mark and the defendant engages in slavish imitation of trade dress and product packaging, causing potential consumer deception and irreparable harm.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Exemption from pre-litigation mediation - Suit contemplating urgent interim relief - Grant of exemption is justified in light of judicial precedence where urgency is demonstrated. (Para 10)

(B) Trademark Infringement and Passing Off - Prima facie case - Deceptive similarity in trade dress and packaging - Prior user - Where products are sold through identical trade channels to the same class of consumers, the adoption of an identical mark and slavish copying of get-up, including mobile numbers and literary content, unequivocally establishes intent to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the prior user, warranting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. (Paras 36-41)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a company engaged in the processing and export of rice, filed a suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against the Defendants. The Plaintiff asserted rights over the ‘AL-BUSTAN’ trademark and a specific blue-yellow trade dress. It was alleged that the Defendant No. 5, a former distributor of the Plaintiff, along with other Defendants, adopted an identical mark and deceptively similar trade dress, even copying unique identifiers such as the Plaintiff's mobile number and ingredients, to gain market advantage. The Defendant initially contested by claiming the mark was generic.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Plaintiff established a prima facie case of passing off. The Defendants' conduct in slavishly copying the Plaintiff's packaging, including non-essential features, and the prior use by the Plaintiff since 2007 against the Defendants' claim from 2023, justified the issuance of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

Issues: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction due to trademark infringement and passing off, and whether the exemption from pre-litigation mediation is maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is a prior adoption of a mark and the defendant's packaging exhibits deceptive similarity intended to trade on the plaintiff's established reputation—evidenced by the copying of specific trade dress elements—the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm favor the granting of an ad-interim injunction.

Result: Application for injunction allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance for filing additional documents, exemptions, and pre-litigation mediation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. registration of suit and issuance of summons for written statements. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. plaintiff's submissions regarding trademark rights and deceptive imitation. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
4. establishing prima facie case for passing off and infringement. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. granting ad-interim injunction and procedural directions. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

O R D E R

I.A. 29238/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)

1. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) [as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (‘Commercial Courts Act’)] read with Section 151 CPC, seeking leave to file additional documents within thirty (30) days.

2. The Plaintiff, if they wish to file additional documents will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘DHC Rules’).

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 29239/2025 (seeking exemption from filing certified copies)

5. This is an application under section 151 CPC, seeking exemption from filing certified copies of govt. statutory documents, clear copies of the illegible documents, documents in vernacular language & documents not having sufficient left-hand margins at this stage.

6. Subject to the Plaintiff filing certified copies, clear copies and translations within a period of 30 days from today, exemption is granted for the present, failing which, the plaintiff will not be entitled to rely upon these documents.

7. In addition, the Plaintiff is directed to e-file fresh coloured copies [with high resolution] of the Plaintiff’s trade dresses and Defendant’s impugned trade dress.

8. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 29240/2025 (seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation)

9. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

10. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi¹(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 29241/2025 (for exemption to serve the defendants in advance)

12. This is an application under section 151 CPC, seeking exemption to serve the Defendants in advance.

13. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that Plaintiff has served the Defendants through e-mail mode on 22.11.2025 and therefore the application has become infructuous.

14. This Court observes that no case for exemption was even otherwise made out.

15. The application is dismissed.

CS(COMM) 1251/2025

16. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off and other ancillary rights against the Defendants.

17. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

18. Summons be issued to Defendants by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2) weeks.

19. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

20. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto withi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 8904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JSAGA LIFESCIENCES LIMITED VS. RITS LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD. & ORS.CS(COMM) 1251/2025

An ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted in trademark infringement and passing off cases when the plaintiff demonstrates prior use of a mark and the defendant engages in slavish imitation of trade dress and product packaging, causing potential consumer deception and irreparable harm.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
SAGA LIFESCIENCES LIMITED VS. RITS LIFESCIENCES PVT. LTD. & ORS.
CS(COMM) 1251/2025