Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Jindal (India) Limited vs Jt Ndal Nextgen Pvt Ltd & Anr on 8 October, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~40
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 976/2025 & I.As. 22618/2025, 22620/2025, 23956/2025
                                    JINDAL (INDIA) LIMITED                                                     .....Plaintiff
                                                   Through:                           Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advocate with
                                                                                      Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Mr. Rishabh
                                                                                      Srivastava, Mr. Sahil Gupta and Mr.
                                                                                      Yashaswini Sharma, Advocates

                                                                  versus

                                    JT NDAL NEXTGEN PVT LTD & ANR.          .....Defendants
                                                 Through: Mr. Adarsh Ramanujam, Mr.
                                                          Vikramjeet Singh, Ms. Pragya
                                                          Dhoundiyal and Ms. Divyanshi
                                                          Bansal, Advocates

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

% 08.10.2025 I.A. 22620/2025 (Under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC)

1. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') [as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 ('Commercial Courts Act')], filed by the plaintiff seeking leave to file additional documents.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that the additional documents will be filed within one (1) week.

3. The liberty sought is granted.

4. The application stands disposed of.

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 13/10/2025 at 21:49:49 I.A. 22618/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

5. This is an application under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, filed by the plaintiff seeking ad- interim injunction against the defendant.

6. The defendant has stated that it will use the following marks:

                          RANGAN/                                                                                                  and




                                                                         .

7. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that plaintiff is contesting the defendants' proposed use of its suggested mark RANGAN/ . He states that even with the change of the font, style and removal of the device, the plaintiff is opposing the use of the said mark as it is close to the plaintiff's mark RANGEEN/ .

8. He states that he would like to place on record additional documents to support its claim.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for an ad-interim injunction at this stage, pending the hearing of this application, 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 13/10/2025 at 21:49:49 the defendant is at liberty to use its proposed new logo in this exact manner and in black colour only.

10. It is clarified that the rights and contentions of the plaintiffs are kept open; further, the rights of the defendants to use the mark shall remain subject to the final decision of this application.

11. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of two (2) weeks.

12. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter.

13. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states that defendants should be directed to comply with their statement recorded at paragraph 15.3 of the order dated 12.09.2025.

14. In reply, learned counsel for the defendants' states that defendants have already initiated steps for compliance of the statement made before this Court, at paragraph 15.3 of the order dated 12.09.2025, which reads as under: -

"15.3 He states that defendants will also take all appropriate steps to have its trade name changed so as to delete the reference to the word NDAL; however, the defendants would require a reasonable period of three (3) months to make all statutory compliances including change of stationary as well as in the web domain names."

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 13/10/2025 at 21:49:49

15. The defendants are bound down to the aforesaid statement.

16. It is recorded that there is no objection to the defendant's use of the proposed device mark in this form.

17. List for hearing on 05.12.2025.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 8, 2025/rhc 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 13/10/2025 at 21:49:49