Delhi High Court - Orders
Yc Electric Vehicle vs Iqbal Proprietor Of M/S K.G.N & Anr on 16 October, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1114/2025 & I.As. 25902-06/2025
YC ELECTRIC VEHICLE .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Neeraj K. Grover, Mr. Yatin
Chadha, Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Ms.
Dolly Luthara, Ms. Prashni and Mr.
Shourya Aggarwal, Advocates
versus
IQBAL PROPRIETOR OF M/S K.G.N & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 16.10.2025 I.A. 25906/2025 (seeking extension for filing Hash Report)
1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), seeking extension for filing hash report under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
2. For the reasons stated in the application extension is granted. Let the same be filed within four (4) weeks from today.
3. The application is allowed.
I.A. 25905/2025 (for exemption form filing fair typed copies, clear copies of the Documents)
4. This is an application under Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from filing fair, typed copies and clear copies of the dim documents, which have been filed with the suit.
CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 1 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35
5. Subject to the Plaintiff filing fair, typed copies and clear copies of the dim documents within four (4) weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.
6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 25904/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
7. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 ('Commercial Courts Act')], seeking leave to file additional documents within 30 days.
8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that he has filed additional documents vide e-diary no. 7493518/2025. The same are directed to be taken on record.
9. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file any further additional documents will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ('DHC Rules').
10. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
11. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 25903/2025 (for seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation)
12. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of CPC filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.
13. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 2 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35 Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi1, exemption from the requirement of pre- institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.
14. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 1114/2025
15. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, acts of unfair competition, seeking damages/rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. against the Defendants.
16. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
17. Summons be issued to Defendants by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2) weeks.
18. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
19. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by Defendants, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.
20. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.
21. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
1(2024) 5 SCC 815 CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 3 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35
22. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service and pleadingson 08.12.2025.
23. List before Court on 25.03.2026.
I.A. 25902/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
24. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking for grant of ad-interim injunction.
25. The case set up by the Plaintiff in the plaint, may be summarised as under: -
26. The Plaintiff i.e., YC Electric Vehicle is a partnership firm established in the year 2014 in Delhi, dealing in electric rickshaws, electric carts, electric three-wheeler, and other electric vehicles along with their spare parts.
27. The subject matter of the underlying suit and the captioned applications is the trademarks of the Plaintiff including but not limited to 'YATRI', , , , , ['YATRI TRADEMARKS'] and the device mark/ logo (s) i.e., and .
28. The Plaintiff contends to be the prior user, prior adopter, prior registered proprietor, and owner of the said marks. The trademark 'YATRI' serves as the house mark of the Plaintiff. It has filed several applications for CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 4 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35 registration of its trademark(s) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the details thereof are mentioned at para 5 of the plaint.
29. Plaintiff also owns the copyright and other proprietary rights in relation to the artistic work in the trade marks, device mark and logo(s) as mentioned above under the Copyright Act, 1957.
30. International Centre for Automotive Technology ('ICAT') a government entity has issued test certificate and test report dated 24.02.2015 in favour of the Plaintiff's e-rickshaw model namely 'YATRI' endorsing the quality and safety of the e-vehicles manufactured by the Plaintiff.
31. The total sales figure for the vehicles sold by the Plaintiff under the trademarks 'YATRI' in the year 2024-2025 is Rs. 5,74,90,15,426 (Rs. 574 crores). The details of the sales figure for the period 2020-21 to 2024-25 is set out in paragraph 15 of the plaint.
32. The Plaintiff maintains a website i.e., https://www.ycevehicles.com/ and Plaintiff's activities and its 'YATRI' brand is extensively promoted through the said website in India and abroad. With a view of expanding its advertising activities the Plaintiff opened Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn social media accounts. Plaintiff has also listed its product on the third-party listing websites i.e., www.indiamart.com, www.tradeindia.com etc and other third-party websites and trade listings which are globally and instantly accessible to the world at large.
33. The Defendants are engaged in the business of identical goods as that of the Plaintiff i.e., e-rickshaw, e-vehicles, etc. The profiles of the Defendant No. 1 on Trade India and Defendant no. 2 on India MART mention the same firm name, GST number, and business address. The Plaintiff beliefs that the Defendants are related parties.
CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 5 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35
34. The Defendants are stated to have recently adopted an identical/deceptively similar trademark (s) as that of the Plaintiff. The marks adopted by the Defendants are 'YATRI', 'E YATRI', , and ['IMPUGNED MARKS'].
35. It is stated that in around fourth week of September 2025, the Plaintiff during a routine check on the internet found that the Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or selling of its e-rickshaws under the identical and /or deceptively and confusingly similar marks 'YATRI', 'E YATRI', , and .
The Defendants have listed their goods under the impugned marks on their website i.e., https:// www.mskgn.in/ as well as in third party websites like India Mart and Trade India. Screenshot of the Defendant's website as well as third party platforms (s)/websites, showing the use of the impugned marks in respect of electric rickshaws is given at paragraph 29 & 30 of the plaint.
36. The Plaintiff also conducted a search on the Public Search portal of the trademark registry, through his trademark attorney, and did not find any trademark application for the impugned marks filed by the Defendants.
37. A comparison chart showing striking similarities between the registered marks of the Plaintiff and the infringing mark of the Defendant is given at paragraph 32 of the plaint and the same is reproduced as under:
CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 6 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35
38. Mr. Neeraj K. Grover, learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Defendant's impugned marks are identical, almost identical, and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's prior adopted, prior used, prior registered, reputed and renowned YATRI trademark(s).
39. He states that the Defendants while adopting the impugned marks have copied the entire concept of the Plaintiff's trademark, including the essential, prominent, and effective element 'YATRI'.
40. He states that the letter 'E' in the impugned marks of the Defendants while retaining the font and style to make or design the visually identical/deceptively similar impugned marks is insignificant/inconsequential and is not capable of distinguishing the Defendants' impugned marks from the Plaintiff's 'YATRI' trademarks. He states that on the vehicles, the Plaintiff's trademark "YATRI" has been displayed prominently and pre-fix "E" is printed in very small font making it inconsequential and incapable of distinction.
CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 7 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35
41. He refers to documents at page 593, 595 and 596 which are the URLs of the Defendants' product listing on IndiaMart. He contends that the Defendants are using the Plaintiff's brand names for the former's models i.e., "Yatri E" and "YATRI DLX" while advertising the vehicle. The use of the same brand names and trademark is clearly intended to mislead the customers.
42. He states that the use of the impugned marks by the Defendants will undoubtedly cause confusion and deception in the minds of customers who in this case comprise mostly of ill-informed and selective class of people, and is likely to deceive potential customers and dealers in the course of trade.
43. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.
44. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that Defendants have been duly served on 14.10.2025 through e-mail. He states that the e-mail address has been listed in the visiting card of the Defendants. He states that as per the e-mail tracking report, the e-mail was accessed and read on 14.10.2025.
45. None appears on behalf of Defendants.
46. The Plaintiff adopted the trademark 'YATRI' in the year 2014 and holds the wordmark registration for the said mark. The Plaintiff has placed on record documents showing the valid and subsisting trademark(s) registration in its favour. Additionally, the Plaintiff is also the owner of the copyright and other proprietary rights in relation to the artistic work in the device mark/ logo of 'YATRI'.
47. The volume of sales of Plaintiff's vehicles shows its significant market presence. The Defendants' adoption and use of the disputed marks CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 8 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35 'YATRI' and 'E-YATRI', considering the fact that it is also operating in the same line of business and is bound to take services of the same type of trade channels for dealing with the same end users/customers as that of the Plaintiff, makes it apparent that the Defendants were well aware of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks.
48. Since the Defendants are selling the very same set of products as that of the Plaintiff with a deceptively similar mark in all likelihood will lead to utter confusion amongst the general public, especially since such members may/can be those who may be ignorant and/ or with less vision who go by the pictural/ graphic representation.
49. In view of the aforesaid, the Plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case with the balance of convenience for grant of an ad interim ex-parte injunction in its favour and against the Defendants. In case the Defendants are not restrained by way of an ad interim ex-parte injunction, there is a likelihood of the Plaintiff suffering irreparable harm, loss, injury and prejudice which cannot be compensated for in terms of money.
50. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing Defendants, its directors, assigns, associates, affiliates, successors, manufacturers, employees, agents, dealers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, licensees, franchisees, stockiest or any persons/entities as may be under the control of the Defendants or are related or affiliated to the Defendants and all others, acting through, for and on behalf of the Defendants, are restrained from using in any manner the impugned marks 'YATRI', 'E-YATRI', , CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35 , and /or any other mark or marks, identical to or deceptively similar to or containing the Plaintiff's trademarks i.e., 'YATRI', including the device mark/logo and either as a brand name, trademark, trading style, corporate name, domain name, metatag, hashtag, web-address or otherwise, on its website, social media webpages, online trade directories or otherwise for manufacturing, producing, offering for sale, selling, displaying, advertising, marketing, stocking, whether directly or indirectly in relation to their business/products/services, whether on the Internet or otherwise, in respect of the E-Rickshaw, E-Vehicles, their parts, components and accessories and/or any other similar/related/allied/cognate goods and/or in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of Plaintiff's trademark(s), copyright and passing off.
51. Issue Notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, upon filing of process fee, returnable on the next date of hearing.
52. Let reply be filed within a period of four (4) weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any be filed within two (2) weeks, thereafter.
53. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done within a period ten (10) days from today.
54. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service and pleadings on 08.12.2025.
CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 10 of 11This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35
55. List before the Court on 25.03.2026.
56. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 16, 2025/rhc/IB CS(COMM) 1114/2025 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/10/2025 at 22:01:35