INTRODUCTION

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908^{1“CPC” hereinafter}, challenging the impugned order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-03), South East district, Saket Courts, Delhi, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal would be referred to by the same status and name as they have been referred to as before the learned District Judge. Thus, the “appellant” would be addressed as “plaintiff” and the “respondent” would be referred as “defendant”.

3. The appellant hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiff” is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing ayurvedic and herbal medicines and supplements under the trade name “M/s Dindayal Industries Limited”, earlier known as “Dindayal Aushadhi Pvt. Ltd.” The plaintiff claims to be the prior adopter and continuous user of the name/mark “DINDAYAL”, and its formative variants in respect of its goods since 1927. The plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of several trademarks comprising or containing the mark “DINDAYAL” across multiple classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999^{2“Trade Marks Act” hereinafter}.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that, by virtue of long, extensive and widespread commercial use, the trademark “DINDAYAL” has acquired substantial goodwill, reputation, distinctiveness and secondary meaning in relation to the plaintiff’s ayurvedic products throughout India.

5. The respondents hereinafter referred to as the “defendants”, are also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling ayurvedic products under the trade name “DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN”. Defendant No. 2, Mr. Ravi Kumar, is stated to own and control Defendant No. 1, which operates from Main Bazar, Ellenabad, District Sirsa, Haryana.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have adopted and are using the marks “DINDAYAL”, “”, “DINDAYAL AYURVED BHAWAN” or “” and the domain name www.dindayalayurved.com (hereinafter, “impugned marks”) , which, according to the plaintiff, are phonetically, structurally and conceptually identical to the plaintiff’s trademark “DINDAYAL”, “”, “” and its formative variants. The plaintiff further claims that the defendants have not only copied the plaintiff’s trademark but have also replicated the plaintiff’s ayurvedic product range with the intent to ride upon the goodwill, reputation and distinctiveness that the plaintiff alleges to have acquired in the mark “DINDAYAL” owing to its continuous use since 1927.

7. Briefly stating the facts leading up to the present appeal, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, importing, offering for sale, advertising and directly or indirectly dealing in goods containing impugned marks on the grounds of trademark infringement and passing off. Alongside, the plaintiff filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from using the impugned marks during the pendency of the suit.

8. By way of an order dated 17.01.2022, the learned District Judge initially granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction to the plaintiff till the next date of hearing and also allowed the plaintiff’s prayer for appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants with certain directions. However, the said ad-interim ex parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff was vacated vide impugned order dated 18.09.2023, whereby the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed.

9. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the plaintiff prays thro