$~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 37/2026 ESME CONSUMER PVT LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Rishabh Srivastav, Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Mr. Sahil Gupta and Ms.

Yasheswani Sharma, Advocates versus KIRAN JAIN TRADING AS DUNI CHAND BISHAN DASS JAIN & ANR .....Defendants Through: Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Ms. Krati Tiwari, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026 I.A. 1110/2026 (Exemption from filing certain documents/clear copies/English translation)

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of the CPC seeking exemption from filing clear/ translated from vernacular languages/illegible copies of the documents.

2. For the reasons stated therein, exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3. The clear, original, certified, typed, translated and legible copies of the documents upon which plaintiff seeks to place reliance, be filed within two weeks.

4. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 1111/2026 (Addl. Document)

5. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) as applicable to commercial suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

6. As prayed, the plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within thirty (30) days.

7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 1112/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)

8. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”).

9. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of Pre-Institution Mediation is granted.

10. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 1109/2026 (Interim Injunction)

11. It is stated that the marks “BLUE HEAVEN” and the other associated marks were earlier registered in the name of one Mr. Gurnam Singh, sole proprietor of M/s G.C. Laboratories since 1972. It is further stated that in 2019, the trademarks/copyrights assigned to the predecessor entity of the plaintiff i.e. M/s G.C. Laboratories stands transferred to M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited vide Assignment Deed dated 27.03.2019. Subsequently, the predecessor entity of the plaintiff i.e. M/s G.C. Laboratories and M/s Blue Heaven Cosmetics Private Limited were duly amalgamated into a single company under the plaintiff’s company name. It is also stated that the plaintiff company and its predecessors have been continuously and

extensively using the trademarks “BLUE HEAVEN/ / /

/ ” since 1972 and the trademark “GET BOLD”

under the umbrella of its trademark “BLUE HEAVEN” since 2020.

12. Plaintiff claims that it had also introduced another set of unique packaging for its products and also expanded its product portfolio under the same “GET BOLD” series, which features new and innovative packaging styles while maintaining the core distinctive elements. It also claims that the continuous and consistent use of the “GET BOLD” trademark, in conjunction with the plaintiff’s well-known trademark “BLUE HEAVEN” has strengthened the plaintiff’s goodwill over the period of time, and has also acquired substantial market presence, and exclusive association with the plaintiff alone.

13. Plaintiff also claims that its products are extensively advertised and promoted through magazines, brochures, digital media, official websites, and various e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, Amazon, Nykaa, Jio Mart, Meesho, etc., resulting in widespread consumer recognition. The annual gross sales turnover of products sold under the plaintiff’s trademark “GET BOLD”

is reproduced hereunder:

14. It is further stated that plaintiff maintains an extensive intellectual property por