$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1003/2025, I.A. 23701/2025, I.A. 26179/2025, I.A.

31344/2025 & I.A. 1789/2026 SAPTARISHI HERBALS LLP .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. N. Mahabir, Advocate.

versus ASIF ENTERPRISES & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Manish Jha, Senior Advocate alongwith Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Mr. Naman Tandon and Mr. Affan Moin, Advocates for D-2 (Flipkart).

Mr. Achal Shekhar, Advocate for D-7.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 27.01.2026

1. After some deliberations and submissions, Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant no.2 (Flipkart) submits that a short note stating all the steps already undertaken by defendant no.2 as also the difficulties being faced by it in certain sectors for deletion/taking down of certain listings would be furnished for consideration of the plaintiff.

2. Mr. Mahabir, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has no objection except to state that so far as the directions contained in order dated 15.12.2025 are concerned, the same be followed scrupulously by defendant no.2.

3. Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for defendant no.2 also submits that the process of gating in terms of para 23 of the order dated 15.12.2025 was initiated first to restrict other sellers from listing products using the plaintiff’s trademark for specific goods/verticals in which plaintiff is registered over the Flipkart platform. This was done so that no new URL could be created using the identical trademark/brand name of that particular vertical of goods. In so far as the directions in para 25 is concerned, Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel submits that no such person has approached defendant no.2.

4. Mr. Mahabir, learned counsel submits that the Document B annexed to the index of documents furnished by defendant no.2 today and handed over to the Bench, is a purported Letter of Authorisation dated 01.01.2025 claimed to have been issued by the plaintiff. He submits that this letter of authorisation was never issued by the plaintiff and as such, it is the apprehension of the plaintiff that such infringers may go to any length to sell their infringing products through Flipkart/defendant no.2.

5. In answer to the same, Mr. Jha, learned Senior Counsel submits that the moment the forgery by the infringer came to the notice of the defendant no.2, not only was the item delisted but also the seller FK Dreams was blacklisted. He submits that there are many ways in which infringers can take advantage of the system and try to sell the infringed products. He submits that in such situation, the defendant no.2 would expect the plaintiff to cooperate with them. 6. He also submits that defendant no.2 has a programme called Brand Assure Programme whereby a complete list of URLs in the specific verticals of those sellers who are using identical/similar brand name/trade name as that of a brand owner like plaintiff are noted. The advantage, according to Mr. Jha, is that the moment the plaintiff flags this issue, the team at the Flipkart (defendant no.2) would automatically, on such information, expedite the process of taking it down, which may be a quicker process.

7. Mr. Achal Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for defendant no.7 submits that defendant no.7 is a retired army personnel who is running a security agency by the name ‘Kulwant Singh Security Agency’ and is registered under the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act (PSARA), 2005. He submits that apparently some unscrupulous persons have copied GSTI Number pertaining to the said Security Agency and has misused its name. He submits that an FIR to that effect has already been lodged by Mr. Kulwant Singh. He seeks some time to place on record an affidavit detailing the entire factual sequence alongwith relevant documents including the FIR.

8. He also requests that a copy of the plaint alongwith all the annexures/documents be furnished. Mr. Mahabir, learned counsel for the plaintiff undertakes to furnish the entire set