$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 127/2026 HCL CORPORATION PVT LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Neel Mason, Ms. Ekta Sharma, Mr. Udit Tewari and Ms. Surabhi Katare, Advocates.

versus JOHN DOES & ORS. .....Defendants Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026 I.A. 3692/2026(Pre-institution Mediation)

1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act’).

2. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi: (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-

institution mediation is granted.

3. The application stands disposed of. I.A. 3693/2026 (Additional documents)

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 3694/2026(Exemption from filing true copies)

7. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of plaintiff seeking exemption from filing true typed copies of documents found to be dim and in vernacular.

8. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true typed/translated copies of the documents be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the defendants.

9. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 3695/2026 (Extension of time to file Court fees)

10. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking extension of time for payment of court fees.

11. Considering the submissions made in the present application, an extension of six days is granted to affix the requisite court fees.

12. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 3691/2026 (Stay)

13. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.

14. The plaintiff claims to have adopted the trademark HCL in the year 1976 as an acronym of its name, Hindustan Computers Limited and has since been using the same continuously, extensively and exclusively. It claims that the said mark is being used by many group companies under the plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that the mark HCL does not bear any reference to the nature of goods or services in relation to which it is used by the plaintiff and is a coined term. In other words, the trademark of the plaintiff is inherently distinctive and capable of registration. A representative list of trademark registrations in favor of the plaintiff is reproduced in para 7 of the plaint, some of which are being extracted hereunder:-

22. 44 2621307 30.10.2013 30.10.2033

15. By virtue of such extensive use of the mark ‘HCL’, it has built a phenomenal reputation and goodwill amongst the members of the trade and public. In fact, according to the plaintiff, on account of such goodwill and reputation over the years, the general public has come to associate the HCL trademarks with the HCL Group and no one else. As a consequence, the plaintiff claims that the use of the said trademarks, identical or deceptively similar by any third party is likely to be associated with the plaintiff.

16. In para 11 of the plaint, an illustrative list of registered websites and accounts on social media platforms of the plaintiff with the date of creation and number of followers are provided. The same are reproduced hereunder:-

17. The screenshots of the websites/domain names belonging to the plaintiff which is the subject matter of the present suit, are also enumerated in para 11 of the plaint and repr