$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 175/2026 LEVI STRAUSS AND COMPANY .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi.

versus BEYOUNG FOLKS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 23.02.2026 I.A. 4968/2026 (Additional Documents)

1. 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 Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act’) seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

2. 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.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 4969/2026 (Exemption from Pre Litigation Mediation)

4. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.

5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi: (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.

6. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 4970/2026 (Exemption from filing clear copies of Documents)

7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing clear and true typed copies of the documents.

8. Exemption is allowed, subject to just exceptions. The clear and typed/translated copies of the documents with proper margins of the dim annexures be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendants.

9. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 4967/2026 (Stay)

10. 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 defendant.

11. The plaintiff claims to be one of the leading apparel brands in the world and traces its origins to the year 1853 when it was founded in the United States of America by Mr. Levi Strauss. Plaintiff states that for the last almost two centuries, it has been engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling readymade clothing, prominently denim jeans, trousers, t-shirts and jackets. Plaintiff claims to be a multinational company listed on New York Stock Exchange with a net revenue for the year ended 2025, in excess of USD 6.2 Billion.

12. The subject matter Tab Device in colour red was used for the first time in the year 1936 in relation to denim jeans etc. From the 1950s and 60s plaintiff’s Tab Device colour moved beyond red to white, orange, black and silver primarily representing different lines of clothing. It claims that on account of long and extensive use, the plaintiff’s Tab Device Mark has acquired immense goodwill and representation in the market and is exclusively associated with the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the mark is distinctive, unique and non-fictional.

13. Plaintiff claims that its readymade clothing, prominently the denim jeans, are sold in more than 120 countries worldwide through approximately more than 50,000 retail locations. It also engages manufacturers in 30 countries worldwide including India, who manufacture readymade clothing including denim jeans and affix the plaintiff’s trademarks including the Tab Device Mark. Plaintiff also claims to have enormous recognition and innumerable awards for its clothing, policies, corporate responsibility initiatives etc. Some of such awards/recognitions are annexed as Document-6 to the plaint.

14. It is claimed by the plaintiff that in the year 1936, the National Sales Manager proposed placing a folded cloth ribbon in the structural seam of a rear patch pocket of the denim jeans so as to be easily identifiable to the consumers. The documents evidencing the creation of the Tab Device Mark are also filed in proof thereof in the documents.

15. Plaintiff