$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1003/2025 SAPTARISHI HERBALS LLP .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. N. Mahabir, Mr. P.C. Arya, Mr.

Udit Gupta and Ms. Noopur Biswas, Advocates.

versus ASIF ENTERPRISES & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Ms. Shilpa Gupta and Ms. Arushi Mann, Advocates for D-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 15.12.2025 I.A. 31344/2025 & I.A. 31348/2025

1. I.A. 31344/2025 is an Application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and I.A. 31348/2025 is an Application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of Trade Mark, Copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts and damages against the Defendants.

3. Vide order dated 22.09.2025, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted against Defendant No. 1 restraining it from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, retailing, distributing, importing or exporting the infringing products under the Plaintiff’s registered Mark ‘DAMDAR’. Vide the same order, Defendant No. 2 was directed to take down, remove and disable the URLs as identified in Annexure-A of the said order and file in a sealed cover / password protected document, all the Basic Subscriber Information, including the names, e-mail addresses, contact numbers, IP logs and registration details of the owners, operators and sellers of goods and / or services through the URLs as identified in Annexure-A of the said Order.

4. Despite passing the order dated 22.09.2025 against Defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 1 continued to list infringing products on the platform of Defendant No. 2. The same was communicated to Defendant No. 2 vide Notice dated 06.10.2025 and the links notified by the Plaintiff were taken down by Defendant No. 2. Subsequently, the Plaintiff again informed Defendant No. 2 vide e-mail dated 09.10.2025 to disable another 1,200 links posted by Defendant No. 1 on the platform of Defendant No. 2 and the said

1,200 links were also taken down by Defendant No. 2.

5. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 2 submitted that although the Plaintiff submitted that the aforesaid 1,200 links were posted by Defendant No. 1, the same included Defendant No. 1 as well as other sellers also. As the same were pertaining to the Trade Mark in question, Defendant No. 2 had taken down the said links.

6. Subsequently, the Plaintiff filed another Application being I.A. 26179/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 of the COC for disobedience of the order dated 22.09.2025 against Defendant No.2. After filing of the said Application, more than 1000 links were again posted on the platform of Defendant No. 2. Accordingly, vide order dated 17.10.2025, the statement of the learned Counsel for Defendant No. 2 was recorded that Defendant No. 2 shall take down additional links available on the platform of Defendant No. 2. It was further directed that the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff would inform the learned Counsel for Defendant No. 2 about all the links available on the platform of Defendant No. 2 as on the date of passing of the said order and Defendant No. 2 was directed to take down the same upon receiving the communication from the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 was also directed to provide the Basic Subscriber Information as directed vide order dated 22.09.2025 and the same was handed over to the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff.

7. As the IP logs were not provided by Defendant No. 2 in the said information, it was directed that the same shall be provided within a period of one week from 17.10.2025.

8. The learned Counsel for Defendant No. 2 submitted that the said directions have also been complied with.

9. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the present Applications were filed as pursuant to the orders dated 22.09.