An ex-parte ad-interim injunction is warranted when a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off by showing that a defendant’s usage of an identical or deceptively similar mark causes consumer confusion and threatens the plaintiff's established market reputation.

O R D E R

I.A. 10923/2026 (Exemption from 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 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. 10924/2026 (Seeking extension of time to file Court Fees)

4. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking exemption from payment of Court Fees at the time of the filing of the suit.

5. Considering the submissions made in the present application, an extension of two weeks is granted to affix the requisite Court Fees.

6. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10925/2026 (Exemption from filing true copies of dim documents and translated copies of documents)

7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing typed/clear copies of dim documents and translated copies at page nos.11 to 41 along with the captioned suit.

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

9. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 10922/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)

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. Plaintiff is a company organised and existing under the laws of USA with its office located in New York. It was founded in the year 2005 and claims to be the owner of the prestigious Inc. and Fast Company Brands which dedicate themselves to celebrating and supporting business leader, entrepreneurs and innovators worldwide. Inc. is claimed to have originally founded in the year 1979 and was acquired by the present plaintiff in the year 2005. Plaintiff claims that through its publication, Inc. magazine, it provides invaluable business insights, practical resources and strategies for owners and managers of private companies. Plaintiff claims to be a hallmark of excellence in business media and has established itself as a highly trusted and influential source of information for entrepreneurs globally.

12. Plaintiff claims that on account of its excellence in the services it provides, it has audience reaching total monthly reach surpassing 25 million individuals, through print edition, digital platforms and social media channels. It also conducts annual events like Inc. 5000 Conference and Gala. In 1996, the plaintiff launched Inc.com website which is accessible throughout the world including India, thereby growing into a dynamic platform. The digital presence of the plaintiff over social media platforms covers upto approximately 16.5 million followers across various channels. It also runs an award winning podcast called Inc. Uncensored Podcast.

13. Plaintiff claims that its success is a direct result of its ongoing commitments to provide high quality contents, valuable business insights and unmatched support for entrepreneurs. This unwavering dedi