Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48247

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jaiprakash Soni – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1268/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Swathi Sukumar, Nishant Dwivedi, Vishal Patel, Kunal Khanna, Divya Verma

In trademark infringement cases, phonetic similarity between competing marks used for identical products, such as 'CENTURY' and 'SANCTUARY', creates a likelihood of deception among ordinary consumers, thereby justifying the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm to the proprietor's goodwill.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Exemption from pre-institution mediation - Granted where urgent interim relief is sought.

(B) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Trademark infringement - Passing off - Phonetic similarity between 'CENTURY' and 'SANCTUARY' - Likelihood of confusion and deception in minds of ordinary purchasers - Prima facie case and balance of convenience established in favour of Plaintiff.

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, owner of the 'CP CENTURY' trademark, filed a suit alleging that the Defendants were using the phonetically similar mark 'SANCTUARY' for identical goods in the metal hardware sector. The Plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and the appointment of a local commissioner to prevent the Defendants from riding upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that there was a striking phonetic similarity between the competing marks, likely to cause confusion. Consequently, the Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark and appointed a local commissioner to inspect and seize the infringing products.

Issues: Whether the use of the mark 'SANCTUARY' by the Defendants constitutes infringement and passing off in relation to the Plaintiff's 'CP CENTURY' trademark, and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to urgent interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of phonetic similarity, the standard is the impact on an ordinary purchaser, who may find it difficult to distinguish between the two marks. Since the products are identical and the marks are phonetically similar, there is a prima facie case for confusion, necessitating an injunction to protect the Plaintiff's established goodwill and statutory rights.

Result: Ad-interim injunction granted.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance for commercial suits, including mediation exemption and summons. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
2. plaintiff's claim regarding proprietary rights and established market presence. (Para 19 , 20)
3. determination of trademark infringement based on phonetic similarity and public deception. (Para 21 , 22)
4. issuance of injunctions and directives for local commissioner oversight. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

I.A. 29555/2025(Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 29554/2025 (Exemption from pre-institution Mediation)

3. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.

5. The Application stands disposed of.

I.A. 29691/2025 (Exemption from advance service to the Defendants)

6. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking exemption from advance service to the Defendants.

7. Ms. Swathi Sukumar, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, submitted that there is a real and imminent likelihood that the Defendants may take immediate steps to dispose of, conceal or suppress its infringing business operations and digital footprints bearing the deceptively similar Trade Mark.

8. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioner, the exemption from advance service to the Defendants is granted.

9. The Application is disposed of.

10. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.

11. Issue Summons. Let the Summons be served to the Defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fee.

12. The Summons shall state that the Written Statement(s) shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

13. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to file Replication(s), if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication(s) filed by the Plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendants be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the Replication(s) shall not be taken on record.

14. In case any Party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

15. If any of the Parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.

16. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 19.01.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.

I.A. 29552/2025(U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC)

17. Issue Notice. Notice be served through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.

18. The present Suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the registered Trade Mark, passing off, copyright, damages, dilution, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc.

19. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:

19.1. The Plaintiff incorporated on 05.04.2021, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing of all kinds of Modular Kitchen Hardware, Cabinet Hardware, Wire Baskets, Hinges, Baskets, Locks, Telescopic Slider, Modular Kitchen Accessories, Household and Kitchen Containers made of Stainless Steel,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48247

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHITejas Karia, JCp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. – AppellantVersusJaiprakash Soni – RespondentCS(COMM) 1268/2025

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tejas Karia, J
Cp Century Hardware Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jaiprakash Soni – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1268/2025