$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 10^th March, 2022

Date of decision: 3^rd June, 2022

+

FAO-IPD 1/2022& CM APPLs. 12-14/2022

VISHAL PIPES LIMITED

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal,

Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr.

Pankaj

Kumar,

Advocates

(M:

9990389539)

versus

BHAVYA PIPE INDUSTRY

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Nikhil Chawla, Ms. Asavari Jain,

Advocates

assisting

the

court

(9765097954)

Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Amicus Curiae

Mr. Naveen Nagarjuna & Ms. Tarini

Sahai, Advocates (M: 9632196700)

Ms. Rajeshwari H. and Ms. Sugandh

Shahi, Advocates assisting the court.

Mr. Dushyant Mahant, Advocate

assisting the Court

Mr. Devesh Vashishtha, Advocate

assisting the court.

Mr.

Sidharth

Chopra,

Advocate

assisting the court

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

I.

BACKGROUND

1. The present is an appeal challenging the order dated 28^th January,

2022 passed by the ld. ADJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the suit

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002252

bearing TM 1/2022 titled Vishal PipesLimited v. Bhavya Pipe Industry,

which is a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of

registered trademark and copyright as also reliefs for passing off, delivery

up, rendition of accounts, etc. for usage of the trademark ‘BPI’, which is

stated to be similar to the Appellant’s/Plaintiff’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

trademark ‘VPL INDIA’. The grievance of the Plaintiff was that the ld. ADJ

had refused to grant an ex parte order of injunction and had also failed to

appoint a Local Commissioner for seizure of the alleged infringing goods.

2. When the matter was listed on 2^nd March, 2022, the Court had noticed

that while trademark disputes are being adjudicated at the District Level by

Commercial Courts, the present order had been passed by the ld. ADJ who

was not designated as a Commercial Court. Upon enquiring the reason for

the same, the Court was informed that the suit is valued below Rs.3,00,000/-

and thus, in view of the pecuniary provisions in the Commercial Courts Act,

2015 (hereinafter “CCA”), where the ‘specified value’ for ‘commercial

disputes’ is 3,00,000/-, read with Section 134 the Trade Marks Act, 1999

(hereinafter “Trademarks Act”) where a suit relating to trademarks is to be

filed and heard only by a District Court, the suit was marked to a District

Judge, not designated as a Commercial Court. The logical corollary of this is

that the provisions of the CCA also are not made applicable to such a suit.

The Court found this situation to be quite peculiar and, accordingly, passed

the following order on 2^nd March, 2022:

“10.

“commercial court”. On the previous date being 28^th

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002252

submissions in this regard.”

3. The question that arises for consideration in this matter is as to

whether IPR suits filed before District Courts, valued below Rs. 3 lakhs,

ought to be listed before and adjudicated upon by the District Judges

(Commercial) under the provisions of the CCA or by District Judges (non-

Commercial), as normal civil suits.

4. Owing to the importance of the issue that has arisen before the Court

for consideration, various counsels as also the Amicus Curiae have made

their submissions and filed written notes of arguments.

II.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

5. On behalf of the Plaintiff, submissions were made by Mr. S.K.

Bansal, ld. counsel who represented the Plaintiff even before the District

Court. The same are as under:

•There are a large number of IPR matters that are valued below

Rs.3,00,000/- and placed before the ld. AJD (non-Commercial) for

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002252

adjudication. Various orders showing the pendency of such cases

before the