Stonex India Private Limited vs Mohit Kumawat on 24 December, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Stonex India Private Limited vs Mohit Kumawat on 24 December, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~43
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 1438/2025 & I.A. 32994/2025
                                    STONEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED                  .....Plaintiff
                                                  Through: Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, Mr. Tarun
                                                           Khurana, Mr. Samrat S. Kang, Mr.
                                                           Vishnu Gambhir, Mr. Anubhav Gupta
                                                           and Ms. Chhvi Pande, Advs.

                                                                  versus

                                    MOHIT KUMAWAT                                                                   .....Defendant
                                               Through:                               None

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                                                  ORDER

% 24.12.2025 I.A. 32998/2025(seeking leave to file additional documents)

1. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], seeking leave to file additional documents within thirty (30) days.

2. The Plaintiff, if they wish to file additional documents will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and they shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 1 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

5. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

6. 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 Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, exemption from the requirement of pre- institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 32997/2025 (seeking exemption from filing certified copies)

8. This is an application under Section 151 CPC, filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking liberty/exemption from filing clearer copies, certified copies and certain documents, which may be found to be dim, photocopy or not of appropriate font size or lacking the prescribed margins.

9. Subject to the Plaintiff re-filing the aforesaid documents as per Rules within a period of thirty [30] days from today, exemption is granted for the present, failing which, the Plaintiff will not be entitled to rely upon these documents.

10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A 32999/2025 (seeking time for filing the required certificate)

11. This is an application filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC seeking time for filing the required certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ['BSA'].

12. The certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of BSA is directed to be filed 1 (2024) 5 SCC 815 CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 2 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

13. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 33000/2025(seeking exemption from advance service)

14. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking exemption from service of the suit paper-book on the Defendant.

15. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner, the exemption from effecting advance service upon the Defendant is granted.

16. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 1438/2025

17. The present suit has been filed for seeking permanent injunction retraining infringement and passing off Plaintiff's registered trademarks/wordmarks and device marks along with other ancillary reliefs.

18. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

19. Summons be issued to the Defendant by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2) weeks.

20. The summons shall indicate that the written statement must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendant shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

21. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by affidavits of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 3 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 record.

22. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

23. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

24. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 13.02.2026.

25. List before the Court on 21.05.2026.

I.A. 32994/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2)

26. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against the Defendant.

27. Ms. Meenakshi Ogra, learned counsel of the Plaintiff has set up the case of the Plaintiff as follows:

28. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'STONEX' and its variants, with statutory registrations subsisting across multiple classes, particularly in relation to natural stones, marble, granite, slabs, tiles, and allied goods in the relevant Class 19.

29. Plaintiff conceived and adopted the trademark/wordmark 'STONEX' and device mark ['Plaintiff's trademark'] in 2003. Plaintiff has also applied for international registrations for its mark 'STONEX' under 56 international jurisdictions wherein it has successfully registered in 4 international jurisdictions2. Details of the various trademark registrations and applications are mentioned at paragraph '18' of the plaint.

30. It is stated that the mark STONEX is innovative and arbitrary, it is a 2 As mentioned at paragraph 19 of the plaint.

CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 4 of 15

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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 combination of term STONE and X, which is intended to signify that the products offered by the Plaintiff is a unique 'X factor' to signify the mark of mastery and luxury of the goods. It is further explained at paragraph 8 of the plaint.

31. Plaintiff's products sold under its mark 'STONEX' has recorded a turnover of over Rs. 487 crores in the financial year (FY) 2024-2025. The revenue figures for the years 2015 to 2025 are mentioned at paragraph 52 of the plaint.

32. The Plaintiff has incurred substantial amount on advertisement and promotion of its trademark with expenditure to the tune of Rs. 10.71 crores incurred in the FY 2024-2025. The expenditure on promotion is set out at paragraph 51 of the plaint.

About the Defendant

33. Defendant is a stone products manufacturer and exporter of all types of marbles and Handicraft products such as Granite Door Frames, Handcrafted marble sculptures, Graveyard Monuments, etc., and is believed to be the Proprietor of the device mark 'STONEX WORLD'/ ['impugned mark'] which was applied on 30.05.2023 a proposed to be used basis in Class 19. The device mark is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark. Details of the impugned mark registration is provided at paragraph '58' of the plaint.

34. It is stated that in the first week of May 2025, the Plaintiff came to know about the Defendant's use of the mark as CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 5 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 a Device mark in connection with identical goods and services in the natural stone and marble industry, through the Defendant's websites www.stoneworld.in and www.stoneworld.net as well as social media platforms. Upon further investigation Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant has got its impugned mark registered. The term 'STONEX' also forms a part of the official email ID used by the Defendant i.e., [email protected] as well as part of its social media accounts.

35. It is stated that on 24.05.2025 Plaintiff served a cease-and-desist notice to the Defendant followed by a reminder notice on 02.07.2025 and a final opportunity for compliance on 12.07.2025. On 09.07.2025 Defendant replied asserting the validity of its registered device mark having a distinct identity and denied any trademark misuse or infringement. Submissions by the Plaintiff

36. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant is using the trade name 'STONEX WORLD' as its business name, thereby creating a false impression of association or affiliation with the Plaintiff's 'STONEX' brand.

37. She states that the Defendant is using the impugned trademark containing the Plaintiff's essential, dominant and central element "STONEX" in respect of goods identical to those of the Plaintiff.

38. She states that the Defendant is advertising, promoting and publicising its goods through its official websites as well as on its official profiles published on social media platforms which contain the tradename 'STONEX WORLD' and the impugned device mark which amounts to soliciting business and trade enquiries from across India.

39. She states that the Defendant's impugned mark is visually, CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 6 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

40. She states that the Plaintiff has already filed a rectification petition being C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2025 against the Defendant's impugned device mark ' ' before this Court seeking cancellation of the registration granted to the impugned mark, which is pending adjudication.

41. She states that the Defendant has dishonestly adopted and continued to use the impugned mark with full knowledge of the Plaintiff's prior adopted and well-established rights in the mark 'STONEX', which has been in long and continuous use for two decades and bona fide in use by the Plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest, much prior to any alleged adoption or registration by the Defendant.

Findings and Directions

42. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record.

43. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the prior in use and prior registered trademark 'STONEX' and its various derivative marks such as STONEX INDIA, , , , , , and ['Plaintiff's trademarks'].

CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 7 of 15

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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51

44. The Plaintiff specializes in luxury marble and natural stones for high end residential and commercial projects and uses its registered mark STONEX in the course of its business. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the wordmark STONEX in the relevant Class 19. The Plaintiff holds registration for several other formative marks beginning with STONEX in several classes including Class 19, as enlisted at paragraph '18' of the plaint, however, STONEX is the essential feature of its marks. The Plaintiff's registration records its user of the mark 'STONEX' from 04.07.2003.

45. The Plaintiff has placed on record statutory auditor's certificate with respect to its advertisement expenditure for the period FY 2015-2016 to FY 2024-2025, which shows that the Plaintiff incurred advertisement expenditure in total of 70.52 crores, approximately. Similarly, the Plaintiff has also placed on record statutory auditor's certificate with respect to its revenue figures for the period FY 2015-2016 to FY 2024-2025, which shows that the Plaintiff had cumulative sales figures during this period for Rs. 3,185 crores, approximately. The aforesaid facts evidence the reputation and goodwill garnered by the Plaintiff in this product segment.

46. The Supreme Court, in its decision in Brihan Karan Sugar Sybdicate Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashwant Mohite Krishna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana3 observed that in a passing off action at the interim stage, the statements of accounts signed by the Chartered Accountant of the Plaintiff indicating the expenses incurred on advertisement and promotion and figures of sales may constitute relevant material for assessing a prima facie case.

47. The Defendant applied for registration of the impugned device mark CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 8 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 on 30.05.2023 in Class 19 on a proposed to be used basis. The Plaintiff in the relevant preceding FY 2022-2023 recorded sales turnover of Rs. 438.25 crores and promotional expenditure of Rs. 15.36 crores. Since the Defendant was foraying into the same field of business i.e. Class 19, it would be apparent that Defendant would have been aware about the existence of the Plaintiff's products and its trademark. Moreover, prior to applying for registration of the impugned mark the Defendant on a cursory search of the Trademark Register would have come across the 59 registrations held by the Plaintiff in the mark STONEX and its formative marks. In these facts, the adoption of the impugned device mark by the Defendant in the year 2023 for the same Class 19 for identical goods on a proposed to use basis would have been done consciously and intentionally to ride upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff's mark 'STONEX'.

48. The Plaintiff has contended that its mark STONEX is not a dictionary word but is an arbitrary mark created with the combination of the terms 'STONE' and 'X' to represent the experience of the customer with the product, as pleaded at para '8' of the plaint. The Plaintiff uses its wordmark 'STONEX' as well holds registration for 59 variations of its STONEX marks. The Plaintiff has shown that it uses the word STONEX on a standalone basis as well as in combination with other words. Illustrative reference is made to STONEX INDIA, STONEX 3 2023 SCC Online SC 1163, at paragraph no. 17.

CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 9 of 15

This is a digitally signed order.

49. The Defendant in its device mark has replicated the complete mark STONEX of the Plaintiff. In the Defendant's device mark , STONEX is the dominant element. The other elements in the Defendant's mark such as WORLD and are not capable of making its device mark distinct from the Plaintiff's mark especially given the nature of formative marks used by the Plaintiff itself, in the course of its trade such as STONEX INDIA, STONEX GALLERIA etc. The customer who is exposed to the Plaintiff's marks including its formative mark is bound to assume that the Defendant's products originate from the Plaintiff, looking at the deceptive similarities of these marks.

50. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment titled Wow Momos Foods Private limited Vs. Wow Burger & Anr4, has held as under: -

"49....Where, therefore, an entity has a family of registered marks in all of which the dominant feature is common, it is entitled to protection against use of the same dominant feature by another person in another mark. This is because the use of the common dominant feature in the family of the marks 4 2025 SCC Online Del 6545 CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 10 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 results in that dominant feature conveying an impression, to the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, that the products come from the same stable. The aspect of likelihood of confusion is, thereby, exacerbated.' (Emphasis Supplied)

51. The Plaintiff adopted the marks STONEX in the year 2003 and has prima facie built a formidable reputation, whereas the Defendant is stated to adopt the impugned mark on 30.05.2023. The Plaintiff is ex-facie the prior adopter, user and registered proprietor of the trademark 'STONEX', having used the said mark since 2003. The voluminous sales figures and longstanding statutory registrations establish goodwill and market presence of the Plaintiff's mark. The Defendant's subsequent adoption of the deceptively similar mark 'STONEX WORLD' for identical goods appears to be dishonest to ride upon the Plaintiff's established goodwill.

52. In view of the averments made above, a prima facie case is made out in favour of the Plaintiff for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. Balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff. Irreparable loss harm and injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the Defendants are allowed to continue unauthorized use of its impugned mark.

53. Consequently, until the next date of hearing, the Defendant its partners, firms, associates, assignees, heirs, successors, agents, employees, subordinates, representatives, franchisees, distributors, dealers, and all others acting for and on its behalf and/or acting under Defendant's instructions and/or acting in concert with the Defendant, are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, displaying, retailing, supplying, distributing, importing, exporting, advertising and/or promoting, and dealing in and/or using in any manner whatsoever, directly and/or CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 11 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 indirectly, the impugned marks 'STONEX WORLD/ or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's Tradename/ trademark or in any manner whatsoever, in relation to any goods, or in relation to any promotional, marketing or advertising material or any other material used or intended to be used for labelling or packaging or for advertising any goods, which would amount to passing off the Plaintiff's trademark.

54. Issue notice to Defendant, through all permissible modes, upon filing of the process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing.

55. Reply be filed within (4) weeks from the receipt of notice. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four (4) weeks thereafter.

56. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize the product bearing the impugned mark, the very purpose of grant of ex parte ad interim injunction would be defeated if the Defendant is given notice contemplated in Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC prior to the execution of the commission. Hence, it is directed that the Plaintiff shall serve notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC at the time of execution of the Local Commission, which shall be done within a period of three (3) weeks from today.

57. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 13.02.2026.

58. List before the Court on 21.05.2026.

I.A. 32995/2025 (seeking appointment of a local commissioner)

59. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rules 4, 9 and 10 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 12 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 151 of the CPC, 1908 seeking appointment of local commissioner to visit and inspect the Defendant's premises located at Stonex World G-1-70, Rupangarh Industrial Area Road, RIICO Industrial Area, Rupangarh Ajmer, Rajasthan-305814 ['Defendant's premises'].

60. In order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with and to preserve the evidence of infringement, this Court deems it appropriate to appoint a Local Commissioner to visit the aforementioned premises.

61. Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocate, E. No. D/14219/2022, M. No. 9911304514 is appointed as a Local Commissioner.

62. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under:

i. The Local Commissioner shall visit the premises of the Defendant as mentioned above, to inspect and seize the product bearing the impugned mark.

ii. The Local Commissioner is permitted to seize the products bearing the impugned mark at the above premises, and if knowledge is acquired of any other premises where the goods could be stored, the Local Commissioner is free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well.

iii. The Local Commissioner shall also inspect and seize any goods/materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, unfinished, packed, unpacked products bearing the impugned mark or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the products bearing the impugned mark can take place. iv. The Local Commissioner shall obtain accounts, including ledgers, stock registers, invoice books, receipt books, cash books, purchase and sale records and any other books of record or commercial transactions kept at the premises of the Defendant and take a photocopy and/or record of all such transactions that pertain to products bearing the impugned CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 13 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51 mark, if any. The Defendant shall cooperate and give passwords to the computers and the files containing the accounts, if the same are stored on the computer or a specific software.

v. After preparation of the inventory, the products bearing the impugned mark, in fully manufactured or unfinished condition, including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, brochures, banners, signage, cartons and other material bearing the impugned mark or the marks, which are similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks, shall be released to the Defendant on Superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.

vi. The Local Commissioner is also permitted to break open the locks, with the help of the local police, if access to the premises where the infringing products have been stocked/manufactured is denied to the Commissioners.

vii. Upon being requested, the concerned, the Station House Officer ['SHO'] and/or the concerned Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction over the aforesaid jurisdiction, shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the commission, as per this order.

viii. The Local Commissioner is permitted to take photographs and videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate.

ix. Copy of the order and complete paper book shall be served by the Local Commissioner upon the Defendant at the time of execution of the commission.

63. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local Commissioners to the Defendant.

64. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 2,50,000/-; (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only), excluding out-of-pocket expenses, travel expenses, and accommodation expenses, etc., which are to be borne by the Plaintiffs.

65. Local commission is to be executed within three (3) weeks. The report CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 14 of 15 This is a digitally signed order.

66. The order passed today, shall not be uploaded for a period of two (3) weeks for enabling the execution of the commission.

67. Either, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff or the Local Commissioner is directed to collect certified copy of this order from the Registry (Dispatch Branch) before for execution of the Commission.

68. The Local Commissioner shall carry the certified copy of this Order for execution of the Commission.

69. In terms of the foregoing, the present application stands disposed of.

70. Coloured copy of this order to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 24, 2025/hp/IB/AM CS(COMM) 1438/2025 Page 15 of 15 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 16/01/2026 at 20:34:51

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders