$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 592/2025 CASTROL LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Vanshika Bansal and Mr.

Jaskaran Singh, Advocates versus DHEERAJ .....Defendant Through: Mr. Saurabh Seth, DHCLSC with Ms.

Sumeera Seth, Ms. Neelam Preet Kaur, Mr. Abhiroop Rathore, Mr. Kabir Dev and Mr. Sukhvir Singh, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 27.11.2025

1. Learned counsel for the defendant states on instructions from the defendant, who is present in Court that the defendant is unwilling to bear any legal costs and is only willing to concede a decree of permanent injunction.

1.1. He states that the defendant is proposing to adopt the following mark for its product. The said proposed mark is reproduced hereinbelow: -

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states on instructions that the proposed new mark is acceptable to the plaintiff.

2.1. He states that the plaintiff is willing to resolve the matter amicably if defendant reimburses the costs of Rs. 1 lakh incurred qua the local commission. He states that infringing material was found during local commission.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant on instructions from the defendant states that the defendant is unwilling to bear the minimum costs of Rs. 1 lakh and states that he is willing to contest the suit and proceed to trial.

4. In the facts of this case, this Court is prima facie of the opinion that the defendant is not a first-time innocent infringer and therefore, the defendant’s unwillingness to bear the legal costs of Rs. 1 lakh appears to be unjustified.

5. However, keeping in view that there is no contest between the parties with respect to the relief of the permanent injunction, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of prayer clause at paragraph 56 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the plaint.

6. It is, however, clarified that the defendant will be entitled to use the aforenoted mark in label form for its products. The defendant will also be entitled to use SMOOTHOL in a descriptive manner

on the product in word form but not as a trademark.

7. It is matter of record that as per the Local Commissioner report filed dated 04.06.2025¹, the Local Commissioner had seized a quantity of 800 infringing packaging material [labels, pamphlets, posters] from the defendant. Accordingly, it is directed that the defendant will hand over the said seized packaging material to the plaintiff within two [2] weeks, which the plaintiff will destroy. With this the relief of delivery up will also stand satisfied.

8. The registry is directed to draw up a decree for the relief of permanent injunction and delivery up in terms of this order.

9. The suit will now only proceed for remaining reliefs of damages and legal costs.

10. The defendant holds GST registration and is directed to place on record its GST returns for the period of last three [3] years along with his bank account statement for last three [3] years, within four (4) weeks, to enable the plaintiff to estimate his damages.

11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he will file an application under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the relief of summary judgement.

12. List the matter before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 06.01.2026.

13. List the matter before the Court on 19.02.2026.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J NOVEMBER 27, 2025/rhc/MG

1 Filed under the index dated 24.09.2025