$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 244/2025 SUPREME KNITTING AND GENERAL MILLS ....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Deepika Pokharia and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates.

versus MR RISHABH JAIN & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Aakash Khattar, Mr. Samrath Rekhi, Mr. Manish Chaubey and Mr. Kapil Mittal, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026 I.A. 642/2026

1. This application is filed on behalf of Defendants under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the reply to the application.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Nitin Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Plaintiff.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed condoning the delay of 3 days in filing the reply. Reply is taken on record.

5. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 27035/2025

6. This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule

17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of plaint.

7. It is stated in the application that the present suit was instituted by the

Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction inter alia restraining the Defendants from infringing Plaintiff’s copyright as well as from passing off the goods of the Defendants as those of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff is the prior user of red and yellow trade dress along with its distinctive elements since its inception in 1961 and the same is exclusively associated with the Plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, Plaintiff has obtained trademark registration comprising the trade dress vide TMA No.3383039 under Class 01 in relation to cycle rubber solutions, which gives rise to an additional claim in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of trademark infringement vis-à-vis the trade dress. In light of this, Plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint as also the prayer clause as brought forth in the application. 8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that this Court can take judicial notice of the subsequent development of the Plaintiff having obtained trademark registration and allow the amendment, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Usha International and another v. Usha Television Limited, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 306, where the Division Bench held that law relating to infringement and passing off are fundamentally similar. The supervening event of registration of trademark is a fact which can be taken note of and on that basis application for amendment can be allowed. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pravesh Narula Trading as M/S. Capital Enterprises v. Raj Kumar Jain Trading as M/S. Bholaram Puranmall and Anr., CS(COMM) 379/2022, decided on 29.10.2024, where the Court has observed that it is a settled proposition that if an amendment is necessary for deciding the real

controversy between the parties and arriving at a just conclusion, such amendment can be allowed at any stage. The power to allow amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings and there is no bar in allowing an amendment even after commencement of the trial, if it is shown that inspite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court finds no impediment in allowing the amendment sought. It is a matter of record that Plaintiff obtained trademark registration during the pendency of the suit and as held by the Division Bench in Usha International (supra), the supervening event of registration of trademark can be taken note of and to this extent, the amendment application can be allowed for amending the plaint. In Pravesh Narula (supra), this Court held that an amendment which is necessary for deciding the real controvery between the parties and to arrive at a just conclusion can be allowed at any stage of the suit.

10. Accordingly, this application is allowed and disposed of, permitting the amendments sought by the Plaintiff.

CS(COMM) 244/2025

11. Amended plaint is taken on r