$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 & CM APPL. 25373/2025 CASTROL LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Mr. Ritesh, Mr. Ayush, Ms. Chahat and Ms. Vanshika, Advs. versus VIVEK PRATAP SINGH .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 04.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The appellant is one of the leading manufacturers of motor oils in the country.

2. It is a matter of common knowledge that engine oils manufactured by the appellant have been duplicated by several counterfeiters who sell engine oils in cans and containers which are identical in appearance, using marks which are also deceptively similar to those of the appellant.

3. One of us, sitting singly in this Court, has dealt with similar matters in which identical infringements had come up before the Court. As these cases deal with engine oil, and duplicacy can lead even to loss of lives, the Court has to take an extremely serious view where counterfeiting is seen.

4. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge has not passed any order on the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and merely renotified the application and also declined to pass any order appointing a local commissioner to seize the infringing products.

5. The local commissioner appointed by the learned Single Judge was only given power to inventorise the infringing products and no power of seizure.

6. When this matter had come up before us, on the very first date of hearing, given the nature of the dispute, we had passed the following order:

“*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS)(COMM)77/2025andCM APPL.25378/2025 CASTROLLIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Ms. Chahat Bhatia and Mr. Ayush Dixit, Advocates versus VIVEKPRATAP SINGH .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAYDIGPAUL

O RDE R

% 29.04.2025 FAO(OS)(COMM)77/2025

1. This appeal assails order dated 22 April 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 10007/2025 in CS (COMM)360/2025, 1CastrolLimitedvVivekPratapSingh

2. The appellant, Castrol Limited, 2“Castrol”,hereinafter, is the proprietor of the followingregisteredtrademarks:

3. The appellant alleged that the respondent was indulging in producing counterfeit products, with a trade dress and appearance nearly identical to the trade dress of the appellant, which stands registered as a trademark in its favour. A tabular comparison in this regard is provided in para 17 of the appeal, which may be reproducedthus :

S. Respondent's Marks Appellant's Marks Changes made by the No. andPackaging andPackaging Respondent

4. Mr. Urfee Roomi, learned counsel for the appellant, has also produced before us, physical copies of the containers of the appellant and the respondent. We have taken photographs thereof andthecomparison thereofmaybeprovidedthus:

5. This Court may take judicial notice of the fact that the appellant’s brand is one of the most widely counterfeited brands. On the original side of this Court, we have come across any numberofcases inwhich theappellant’s brandandthecontainerof the appellant have been counterfeited and counterfeiters have been selling motor oil and other such products in containers nearly identical in appearance to that of the appellant, and mimicking the colour scheme of the appellant’s container as well as the oil in

actionbearingdevice( ).

6. Inasmuch as the goods in question are motor oil, counterfeiting cannot be tolerated at any cost. The very fact that counterfeited products have been produced, itself indicates that the quality of the product may be suspect, as the counterfeiters are seeking to capitalize on the reputation of the appellant, and confuse consumers into believing their product to be that of the appellant. As use of substandard motor oil can endanger the lives of citizens, thecourt has tobe addi