CM APPL. 16587/2026 (Exemption)

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

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 23278/2026 (For condonation of delay)

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 57 days in re filing the appeal is condoned.

4. The application stands disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 149/2026 & CM APPL. 16586/2026

5. This appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2025 [‘impugned judgment’] passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court) in CS(COMM) 184/2023.

FACTUAL MATRIX

6. Respondent No. 1 is engaged in providing ready-to-work opportunities to army personnel in various fields for running stores by the name of ‘Ardh Sainik Canteen’ since 2015. Respondent No. 2 is the proprietor and has a registration for the device mark bearing TM No. 5188201. It is stated that the words ‘Ardh Sainik Canteen’ are the dominant feature of this device mark.

6.1. It is stated that the Appellant and his father had approached the Respondents in June 2022 for obtaining a franchise from the Respondents for running and operating a store with the name ‘Ardh Sainik Canteen’ as well as purchasing goods to be sold at the store, by paying a sum of Rs. 55,000/- [Rupees 5,000/- as registration amount and Rupees 50,000/- as ASC Franchisee service charge]. It is stated that an agreement was executed between the Appellant’s father and the Respondents, which was proved during the course of arguments through franchise agreement(s) [Ex. DW1/PX1 and Ex. DW1/PX2]. It is stated that the Appellant and his father learnt about the mode of operation of the franchise store from the Respondents. However, the franchise agreement was not acted upon by the Appellant or his father and the sum of Rs. 50,000 was returned by the Respondents.

6.2. Subsequently, the Respondents came across an advertisement by the Appellant, and learnt that the Appellant had been using the mark ‘Bhhotpurv Ardh Sainik Kalyan Canteen/ [‘impugned mark’], which was deceptively similar to the Respondents’ mark and the Appellant was targeting the same consumers as those of the Respondents.

6.3. It is stated that the Respondents issued a legal notice dated 23.01.2023; however, the Appellant denied that the impugned mark was similar to that of the Respondents vide reply dated 12.03.2023.

6.4. In these facts, the Respondents filed a suit inter alia seeking a permanent injunction against the Appellant. The matter proceeded to trial, and the parties led evidence during which the facts pertaining to prior franchise agreement and knowledge of the Appellant as regards the Respondents’ proprietorship in the mark stood proved.

6.5. The Trial Court passed the impugned judgment in favour of the Respondents and granted damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- [Rupees Three Lakhs only] along with counsel’s fee quantified at Rs. 22,000/- [Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only] as costs, payable by the Appellant, whilst permanently restraining the Appellant from using the mark Bhhotpurv Ardh Sainik Kalyan Canteen / .

7. In these facts, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.

COURT’S FINDINGS

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and has perused the record.

9. The Appellant has argued that the suit was filed by two plaintiffs [Respondents herein], and in the impugned judgment, the Trial Court agrees that no document evidencing authorization in favour of the person who filed the suit on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has been brought on record. The Appellant contends that, in view of the said finding at paragraph ‘11’ of the impugned judgment, the plaint ought to have been dismissed.

10. We are unable to accept this contention of the Appellant. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction on the ground that the Appellant’s use of the impugned mark infringes the registered mark of Respondent No. 2. The Appellant does not dispute that R