$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 270/2025 TUSHAR KUMAR GUPTA SOLE PROPRIETOR OF J K FURNITURES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Grover, Mr. Yatin Chadha, Mr. Mayank Chadha, Mr. Gurvinder Singh & Ms. Dolly Luthra, Advocates.

Versus IMAAMUDDIN KHAN SOLE PROPRIETOR OF SUHANA FOAM INDUSTRIES & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Agarwal & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kharea, Advocates for R-1.

Ms.NidhiRaman,Mr.OmRam&Mr.

Arnav Mittal, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 05.12.2025 IA No.30485/2025

1. The Petitioner has filed the present Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking extension of time for filing the Hash Report under Section 63(4)(C) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

2. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. Let the Hash Report be filed before the next date of hearing.

3. The Application stands disposed of.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 270/2025

4. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) seeking cancellation / rectification of the registered Trade Mark ‘ ’ (“Impugned Mark”) registered under Registration No.3418940 in Class 24 in the name of Respondent No. 1 from the Register of Trade Marks.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Registration Certificate issued to Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2 on 05.03.2020 shows that the Impugned Mark has been registered in Class 24 for the goods of Textile, Foam, Mattress, Bedsheet, Pillow & Pillow Covers.

6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the NICE ClassificationpublishedbyWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization,Geneva (“WIPO”) along with list of services in class order. As per the said Classification, Class 24 includes only Textiles and Textile Goods for household use, not included in other classes.

7. In view of the same, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Impugned Mark has been wrongly registered in Class 24 for ‘Mattress’ and ought not to have been registered in Class 24 for ‘Mattress’. Accordingly, it wrongly remains on the Register of Trade Marks and is required to be rectified / cancelled.

8. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 accept Notice.

9. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submitted that he has received two versions of the Petitions without identifying which version is final version and seeks time to file Reply to the Petition.

10. Let Reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter. Respondent No. 2 shall also clarify in the Reply to be filed as to how the goods described in the Registration Certificate for ‘Mattress’ has been included in Class 24 although the same is not mentioned in the NICE Classification. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner shall also place the documents on record showing as to how the Petitioner is “an aggrieved person” as mentioned in Sections 47 and 57 of the Act and also file a compilation of case laws on that aspect within two weeks with advance service to learned Counsel for the Respondents.

11. List for hearing on 09.02.2026.

IA No.30484/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

12. The Petitioner has filed the present Application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to Commercial Suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”) seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

13. The Petitioner is permitted to file the Additional Documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.

IA No.30483/2025 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC)

14. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel for the Respondents accept Notice. 15. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a page after Page No. 34 of the Application is missing and the page on which Pray