$~52 & 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 782/2022 & I.A. 4641/2023 THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY L.P .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and Mr. Risabh Gupta, Advocates versus M/S EMBASSY APPAREL AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Bhavya Sethi and Mr. Shiven Khurana, Advocates + CS(COMM) 452/2017 & I.A. 3422/2014 THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY L.P. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. S. K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and Mr. Risabh Gupta, Advocates versus M/S EMBASSY APPAREL .....Defendant Through: Mr. Bhavya Sethi and Mr. Shiven Khurana, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 30.10.2025

1. With the assistance of the parties and on the basis of the pleadings, the following issues have been framed:-

i. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit? OPD ii. Whether the Defendant has dishonestly adopted the word mark POLO and POLO formative trademarks/label as pleaded in Paragraph No. 23 of the Plaint? OPP iii. Whether in light of the order of the Trade Mark Registry’s order dated

28.02.2002 rejecting Plaintiff’s application no. 517126 filed in Class 25, the subsequent registration of Plaintiff’s trademark POLO registered under No. 1277784 in Class 25 is invalid? OPD iv. Whether the Defendant is the prior and bona fide adopter and user of the trademark POLO in respect of goods in Class 25?

OPD v. Whether the Defendant is infringing the Plaintiff’s POLO and POLO formative registered trademarks including device of POLO player as mentioned in Para No. 9 of the plaint? OPP vi. Whether the Defendant is passing off the Plaintiff’s trademark/ label POLO/POLO Ralph Lauren/polo by Ralph Lauren and device of POLO player? OPP vii. Whether the Defendant is infringing the plaintiff’s copyright in the label of POLO and POLO formative trademarks/label including device of POLO player? OPP viii. Whether Defendant is guilty of violating the Plaintiff’s right in Plaintiff’s POLO trade name/domain name? OPP ix. Whether the Defendant is guilty of obtaining the impugned trademark registration for POLO under no. 323908 in Class-25 and 454970 in class 25 for POLO along with device of POLO player, wrongly and fraudulently? OPP x. Whether the Plaintiff has made false statements as to its exclusive proprietorship and use in India of the POLO marks and suppressed final orders operating against Plaintiff’s claim of exclusive proprietorship of the POLO mark from the Court, as pleaded in paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 of the preliminary submissions and 1, 2, 13, 14, and 15 of the preliminary objections in the written statement? OPD xi. What is the effect of the declaration of Plaintiff’s mark as a well-

known mark during the pendency of these proceedings on the claims made in the suit against the Defendant? OPP xii. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to rendition of accounts or in the alternate damages as sought in the plaint? OPP xiii. Relief

2. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff urged that Defendant is liable to be restraint from using the trademark POLO as a part of its domain name and sought framing of an issue to this effect. In the considered opinion of this Court, this would be the relief which the Plaintiff would be entitled to, if it succeeds in aforementioned issue nos. v and vi.

3. No other issue is pressed by the parties.

4. The parties seek and are granted last opportunity to file the additional documents, if any, within four (4) weeks from today, failing which, the liberty shall stand exhausted.

5. The parties are directed to file their list of witnesses within four (4)

weeks.

6. Plaintiff will file the evidence affidavits of its witnesses within a period of eight (8) weeks.

7. The parties seek appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence. Accordingly, Mr. Vinay Kumar Khanna, M. No. 9910384719 (Former Principal District & Sessions Judge) is appointed as a Local Commissioner. The terms of appointment are as under: -

a) At this stage, the fees of th