$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 16.04.2026 + FAO (COMM) 88/2026 CM APPL. 19795/2026 CM APPL.

19796/2026 MAHESH VALUE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. C.M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Rahul Vidhani, Mr. Dhruv Sikka, Mr. Lakshay Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Ms. Mokshita Gautam, Ms. Shreya Jain, and Ms. Urvashi Arora, Ms. Yashika Sehgal, Ms Annanya Mehan, Advs. versus RIKHAB CHAND JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Raao and Ms. Anju Kumari, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Manas Raghuvanshi and Mr.

Gyanendra Rathour, Advs. for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal lays challenge to an order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-10), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi whereby the learned District Judge has by appointing a Local Commissioner, on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, CPC filed by the respondent nos. 1& 2 restrained the appellant from using the trademark ‘TT’ in the following manner:

“ In the facts and circumstances as already discussed a prima facie case appears in favour of plaintiff. Initial balance of convenience also appears in his favour as plaintiff is registered trademark owner and prima facie defendant do not appear to have any right to store or sell counterfeit goods containing mark of plaintiff.

In the facts and circumstances, till further orders, by way of an ad-interim ex-parte injunction, the Defendants, their directors, partners, servants, principals, agents, stockiest, associates or any of them acting for, claiming under or through or on behalf or in concert with them arc restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly of indirectly dealing in

goods bearing the trademark

or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff No. 1' s trademark.

They are further restrained from infringing the trademark of the Plaintiff No.1 in the work “TI” by reproducing the same in any manner on the goods manufactured by the Defendants or on stationary, letter heads, Guarantee Cards, packing materials used by the Defendants.

They are further restrained from adopting/using, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or

indirectly dealing under the mark and name

which is

visually similar to the Plaintiff No. 1’s trademark TT/ so as to misrepresent their services as those of the Plaintiff No. 1 and from doing any other thing as may cause confusion or deception leading to passing off their services and business as those of the Plaintiff No. 1.”

2. The submission of Mr. C.M. Lall, learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the said order has been passed by the learned District Judge in a suit/plaint where the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein have concealed the material facts.

3. According to him, the plaint has been filed seeking a restraint order against the appellant with regard to the trademarks TT/TT Tasty Tasty/Tasty Tasty, by concealing that the appellant is the prior adopter and long-standing registered proprietor of the mark ‘TT’ in respect of Asafoetida tracing its adoption to the year 1895 through its predecessors and had registration as early as 1950 and also extensive portfolio of registrations across classes even thereafter.

4. He states that the appellant has been continuously and extensively using this mark and has substantial goodwill and reputation. In this regard he has drawn our attention to various documents filed along with the appeal. His submission is that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had issued a legal notice on 05.05.2017 of which no reference has been given in the plaint.

5. In fact, the appellant had replied to the legal notice wherein it is specifically mentioned that the mark ‘TT’ with regard to the aforesaid product has been adopted in the year 1895 with registration dating as early as 1950. It is because of concealment of important facts including issuanc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document