A court will grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit where the plaintiff establishes a long-standing reputation, a prima facie case of deceptive similarity in marks and trade dress, and where the balance of convenience necessitates protecting the owner from irreparable loss.

ORDER

I.A. 10891/2026 (Additional Documents)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs are 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. 10890/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)

4. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs 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. 10892/2026 (Exemption)

7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing typed copies of documents which may be dim/illegible at page nos.48, 60, 69 to 174 and 577 and in vernacular language at page nos.644 to 872 of plaintiffs’ documents.

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

9. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10889/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)

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

11. Plaintiff no.1, a company registered under the laws of the Cayman Islands, claims to be the owner of trademarks, patents and other intellectual property rights, which are licensed to and used by the plaintiff no.2/Himalaya Wellness Company which is a partnership firm, for the purpose of manufacture and sales of products in India and abroad. Plaintiff no.2 is in the business of manufacture and marketing of ayurvedic medicines and health products since 1930 and has over the years diversified into manufacturing and selling of cosmetic products as well. Plaintiff no.2, having been in the said business for over nine decades, claims to be one of the most renowned and respected business concerns in India as well as abroad.

12. It is claimed that the plaintiffs started their operations in Dehradun, way back in the 1930s, and later spread the wings to Mumbai and across the country. In 1975, the plaintiffs set up an advanced manufacturing facility in Makali, Bangalore, India, which today houses the principal office of plaintiff no.2. Over the years, the plaintiffs claim to have initiated the use of tools of modern science to create pharmaceutical-grade ayurvedic products to pioneer research and converting Ayurveda’s herbal tradition into a complete range of proprietary formulations dedicated to healthy living and longevity, which has been the foundation of the plaintiff companies’ ethos. It is claimed that today, the plaintiffs’ products address the healthcare needs of consumers in over 100 countries and have been endorsed by 400,000 doctors around the globe. The plaintiffs claim to have been awarded an ISO 9001:2000 certification.

13. The plaintiffs claim to be a leading global herbal health and personal care organization, offering close to 500 health care products in the domain of pharmaceuticals, herbal medicines, personal care and wellness in over 100 countries, and deals in s