Delhi High Court - Orders
Ani Technologies Private Limited & Ors vs John Doe/ Ashok Kumar & Ors on 17 September, 2025
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 991/2025
ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Mr.
Angad Baxi, Ms. Aparna Singh & Mr.
Devashish Vashistha, Advocates.
versus
JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. .....Defendants
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 17.09.2025
I.A. 23106/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 23102/2025 (Exemption from pre-institution Mediation)
3. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiffs seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("CC Act").
4. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 23104/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
6. The present Application has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs under CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 1 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") as applicable to Commercial Suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
7. The Plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
8. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of. I.A. 23107/2025 (Exemption from advance service to the Defendants)
9. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking exemption from advance service to the Defendants.
10. Mr. Jayant Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs, submitted that there is a real and imminent likelihood that the Defendants may take immediate steps to dispose of, conceal or suppress its infringing business operations and digital footprints bearing the deceptively similar Marks.
11. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought an urgent ex-parte ad- interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioners, the exemption from advance service to the Defendants is granted.
12. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 23105/2025 (for seeking discovery, production & inspection of Defendants' documents)
13. This Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XI Rules 1, 3 and 5 of the CPC as amended by the CC Act read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking discovery, production and inspection of the Defendants' documents.
14. Issue Notice. Let the Notice be served through all modes upon filing of the Process Fee.
CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 2 of 20This 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
15. Let the Reply to the Application be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
16. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 14.11.2025 for completion of service and pleadings.
17. List before this Court on 21.01.2026.
CS(COMM) 991/2025
18. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.
19. Issue Summons. Let the Summons be served to the Defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fee.
20. The Summons shall state that the Written Statement(s) shall be filed by the Defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiffs, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
21. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiffs to file Replication(s), if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication(s) filed by the Plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendants be filed by the Plaintiffs, without which the Replication(s) shall not be taken on record.
22. In case any Party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
23. If any of the Parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
24. List before the learned Joint Registrar on 14.11.2025 for completion of CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 3 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 service and pleadings.
I.A. 23101/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)
25. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Defendants.
26. Issue Notice. Let the Notice be served through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.
27. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking protection of their Marks 'OLA' and 'OLA ELECTRIC' ("OLA Marks") against the counterfeiting of the Plaintiffs products including OLA Belts and OLA Integrated Human Machine Interfaces ("HMI").
28. Mr. Jayant Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the following submissions:
28.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is, inter alia, engaged in the business of providing a technology-based transportation platform for point-to-point commute, for time-based use within city limits, and also for inter-
city transportation. Plaintiff No. 1 started its business in 2010 and is one of India's largest cab aggregators which enables rider subscribers to connect with driver subscribers for the purpose of hiring of various modes of transportation. Plaintiff No. 1 is also the registered proprietor of the Mark 'OLA'.
28.2. Plaintiff No. 2 along with its subsidiaries namely OLA Electric Group is engaged in the development and productions of electric vehicles ("EV") and core components including battery packs, motors, vehicle frames, belts, HMI, etc. through vertically integrated operations. Plaintiff No. 2 conducts in-house research and development and sells its final products through a direct to CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 4 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 customer also abbreviated as D2C network. Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of the Mark 'OLA ELECTRIC'. 28.3. Plaintiff No. 3 is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 2 engaged in the manufacturing and sale of electric scooters and related parts, including belts and HMIs, through distribution network across India including Delhi.
28.4. The Plaintiffs' brands OLA and OLA ELECTRIC have achieved household recognition across India and are synonymous with innovation, sustainability, and quality in the field of electric mobility. The Plaintiffs have invested enormous sums in advertising, branding, and promotion. The Plaintiffs' Products and services enjoy high recall value, and the OLA Marks qualifies as a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("Act").
28.5. In the last four years, Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 have built one of India's largest EV company with 30% market share. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 have scaled its physical presence to over 4,000 customer touchpoints. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 focused to achieve growth and driving EV penetration have invested significantly in all verticals of auto business including distribution network and R and D capabilities.
28.6. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 operate online and offline direct fulfilment model, with vehicles shipped directly from factory to store, eliminating intermediate warehousing delays. In Delhi, the Plaintiffs have 31 stores and 3 service centres. Under the Plaintiffs' business model, core components are never sold separately. The CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 5 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 core components are replaced and fitted at the authorised service centres, and the vehicle is thereafter returned to the customer. Therefore, any core components found in the retail market is counterfeit.
28.7. Over the last few months, the Plaintiffs received repeated consumer complaints regarding malfunctioning of parts allegedly branded as OLA and OLA ELECTRIC. In order to investigate, the Plaintiffs commissioned an investigation and on-ground survey between 01.09.2025 and 11-12.09.2025. The reports submitted on 11 and 12.09.2025 revealed that several shops in Karol Bagh, Delhi, Faridabad and surrounding areas were selling counterfeit OLA Belts and OLA Integrated HMIs ("Counterfeit Products"). Defendant No. 1 (John Doe / Ashok Kumar) are the unknown entities engaged in the manufacture, stocking, distribution, and sale of counterfeit OLA / OLA ELECTRIC branded products inter alia through Defendant Nos. 2 to 6. Defendant Nos. 2 to 6 are the shops where the Counterfeit Products were found during the Plaintiffs' investigation.
(a) Investigation Report dated 11.09.2025, on Defendant No. 2 revealed that Defendant No. 2 is engaged in distribution of Counterfeit Products of the Plaintiffs in Karol Bagh market, New Delhi. A counterfeit OLA integrated HMI was purchased from Defendant No. 2 which had the Mark 'OLA' on the product and packaging as reproduced below:CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 6 of 20
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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
(b) Investigation Report dated 12.09.2025, on Defendant No. 3 revealed that Defendant No. 3 is engaged in distribution of Counterfeit Products in Karol Bagh market, New Delhi. A counterfeit OLA ELECTRIC belt was purchased from Defendant No. 3 which had the Mark 'OLA' on the product's packet as reproduced below:
(c) Investigation Report dated 12.09.2025, on Defendant No. 4 revealed that Defendant No. 4 is engaged in distribution of Counterfeit Products in Karol Bagh market, New Delhi. A counterfeit OLA ELECTRIC belt was purchased from Defendant No. 4 which had the Mark 'OLA' on the product and invoice as reproduced below:CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 7 of 20
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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
(d) Investigation Report dated 11.09.2025, on Defendant No. 5 revealed that Defendant No. 5 is engaged in distribution of Counterfeit Products in Faridabad market. A counterfeit OLA ELECTRIC belt was purchased from Defendant No. 5 which had the Mark 'OLA ELECTRIC' on the packaging as reproduced below:
(e) Investigation Report dated 11.09.2025 on Defendant No. 6 revealed that Defendant No. 6 is engaged in distribution of CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 8 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 Counterfeit Products in Faridabad market. A counterfeit OLA ELECTRIC belt was purchased from Defendant No. 6 which had the Mark 'OLA ELECTRIC' on the packaging as reproduced below:
28.8. On receiving the sample Counterfeit Products, the Plaintiffs shared the same with Head of Quality Control Team for examination. Upon detailed inspection, the official confirmed that the sample Counterfeit Products were not manufactured, distributed or authorized by the Plaintiffs and counterfeit in nature and of substandard quality. For HMI product, the official confirmed that while the counterfeiting cannot be confirmed, it was confirmed that the Plaintiffs have not sold the product to the Defendants, and the CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 9 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 low price confirmed that either the product is a counterfeit or was sold in the open market illegally.
28.9. The Counterfeit Products bear the OLA Marks on packaging, products and invoices, mimic the Plaintiffs' trade dress, artwork, and branding and are being marketed to deceive customers into believing they are genuine. Photographs, samples, and invoices from the investigation demonstrate the deceptive similarity. 28.10. The Counterfeit Products are critical to vehicle safety. Substandard belts may snap, and defective HMIs may malfunction during driving, thereby endangering the lives of riders and third parties. The issue is therefore also of public safety and consumer protection. The conduct of the Defendants is dishonest and unlawful. 28.11. The Plaintiffs enjoy substantial goodwill and reputation in connection with its brand OLA and OLA ELECTRIC, including its distinctive packaging, and marketing materials, which are exclusively associated with the Plaintiffs' Products in the minds of the public. The Defendants, including other unidentified sellers and marketers, have unlawfully adopted identical or deceptively similar marks with substantially similar packaging elements, including colour schemes, taglines, and overall packaging. 28.12. The Defendants have intentionally copied the Plaintiffs' packaging by replicating identical or substantially similar colour schemes, brand identifiers, and taglines, with the mala fide to deceive consumers and mislead them into believing that the Counterfeit Products originate from, or are in some manner associated with, the Plaintiffs, thereby constituting an act of passing off. The deliberate CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 10 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 misrepresentation by the Defendants is likely to cause, and has caused, confusion and deception among consumers, resulting in serious injury to the Plaintiffs' commercial and proprietary interests. 28.13. The repeated and unauthorized use by multiple sellers is causing immediate commercial injury to the Plaintiffs and posing a serious threat to the distinctiveness and exclusivity of the Plaintiffs' brand and the Mark 'OLA'. The unauthorised use of Plaintiffs' brand and distinctive packaging with inferior products, significantly diminishes the distinctiveness and goodwill associated with the Plaintiffs' brand. The John Doe Defendants, by indiscriminately using the Plaintiffs' brand name and packaging on low-quality or Counterfeit Products, are undermining the value and credibility of the Mark 'OLA', which in turn erodes the Plaintiffs' competitive advantage in the marketplace.
28.14. The Plaintiffs' registrations for the OLA Marks grant the Plaintiffs statutory rights for the exclusive use of the OLA Marks. Accordingly, any use of a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the OLA Marks, or the essential features thereof, for identical goods by an unauthorized person, amounts to a violation of the exclusive trade mark rights of the Plaintiffs under the Act. Such unauthorized use constitutes infringement of the OLA Marks. The Defendants' use of identical or deceptively similar trade marks for identical goods, therefore, constitutes infringement under Sections 29(1) and 29(2) of the Act.
28.15. The Defendants are guilty of infringing the Plaintiffs' copyright subsisting in the original artistic works, labels, logos, trade dress, CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 11 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 packaging, get-up, layout, and promotional materials created by and on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs being the first and exclusive owners of such original artistic works within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and enjoy full copyright protection in terms of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Defendants have unauthorisedly reproduced, copied, and imitated the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works in relation to Counterfeit Products and their packaging, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution, and communication to the public.
28.16. The use of the OLA Marks by the Defendants also amounts to unfair trade practice. Having observed the success of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants adopted and started using the OLA Marks to take undue advantage of the financial and human resources invested by the Plaintiffs in building their brand equity and goodwill, without incurring any costs themselves. The Defendants are directly competing with the Plaintiffs in the same field of activity and are selling Counterfeit Products by exploiting the reputation and goodwill established by the OLA Marks.
28.17. The Plaintiffs have a strong prima facie and ex-facie case against the Defendants. The balance of convenience also lies heavily in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. The Plaintiffs, being the legitimate and registered proprietors of the OLA Marks and the exclusive owners of the copyrighted works, stand to suffer irreparable harm, loss of goodwill, dilution of brand distinctiveness, and erosion of consumer trust if the Defendants are permitted to CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 12 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 continue their infringing, counterfeiting, and passing off activities. The injury caused to the Plaintiffs is not merely financial but also reputational. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction is necessary to prevent the Defendants from continuing their unlawful acts and to preserve the subject matter of the present Suit.
29. The material placed on record by the Plaintiffs includes the Plaintiffs' registrations, sales and marketing campaigns and household recognition to assert that the OLA Marks enjoy considerable reputation and goodwill in the market. The investigation reports demonstrate that the Defendants are dealing in Counterfeit Products bearing the identical OLA Marks, packaged and marketed in a manner calculated to mislead consumers into believing that Counterfeit Products originate from the Plaintiffs.
30. The Counterfeit Products in question comprise automotive components, namely belts and HMIs, where quality, durability, and reliability are of paramount significance. Counterfeit Products, namely belts and HMIs, when manufactured with inferior quality compromise vehicle performance and pose serious risks to rider safety. If Counterfeit Products of inferior quality bearing the identical OLA Marks are permitted to circulate in the market, any malfunction or accident arising therefrom will tarnish the Plaintiffs' reputation, erode consumer trust, and cause irreparable damage to the goodwill built by the Plaintiffs.
31. Having considered the pleadings, documents on record, and the submissions advanced on behalf of the Plaintiffs, a prima facie case is made out. The alleged acts attributed to the Defendants are likely to cause confusion in the course of trade of the Plaintiffs, leading to erosion of consumer trust and irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation if the CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 13 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 Defendants are not restrained from dealing in the Counterfeit Products. Accordingly, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.
32. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants, their partners, proprietors, directors, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, retailers, dealers, franchisees, representatives, assigns, and all others acting on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, distributing, marketing, retailing, advertising, promoting, using in the course of business and / or in any manner using or dealing in Counterfeit Products , , , , CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 14 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 or any other products bearing the Marks 'OLA' and 'OLA ELECTRIC', or any other marks / representations deceptively or confusingly similar thereto, whether as a trade mark, trading name, domain name, or as part of packaging, get-up, artwork, layout, design, trade dress, colour scheme, promotional or advertising material, business papers, invoices, or in any other manner whatsoever so as to infringe the statutory rights of Plaintiffs in the Marks 'OLA' and 'OLA ELECTRIC', from infringing the copyright in the Plaintiffs' original artistic works, logos, labels, trade dress, packaging, get-up, layouts, designs, promotional materials, and digital assets, by reproducing, printing, publishing, distributing, communicating to the public, or otherwise using any identical or substantially similar reproduction thereof without authorization from the Plaintiffs and from passing off counterfeit or spurious goods as those of the Plaintiffs under the Marks 'OLA' and 'OLA ELECTRIC' or by adopting any trade indicia to cause deception or confusion among consumers and the trade.
33. Let the Reply be filed, along with all the documents which Defendants wish to rely upon, within a period of three weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
34. List before this Court on 21.01.2026.
CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 15 of 20This 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11 I.A. 23103/2025 (for Appointment of Local Commissioners)
35. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiffs under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 and Section 151 of the CPC, seeking appointment of Local Commissioners. The Court has considered the merits of the Plaintiff's case and has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction as recorded above in I.A. 23101/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.
36. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with, it is deemed appropriate to appoint Local Commissioners to visit the Defendants' premises at the following address:
Sr. Particulars Name of Local
No. Commissioner
1. Rajiv Auto Centre Mr. Gautam Mishra,
2070, 1st Floor, Gali No. 39, Naiwala, Advocate
Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 [Mobile No. 8840437840]
2. EV Karol Bagh Mr. Gaganmeet Singh
2095, Gali No. 37, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Sachdeva, Advocate New Delhi- 110005 (both shop and [Mobile No. 9582055425] warehouse)
3. Galaxy Traders Mr. Ojasvi Madan, 2094, Gali No. 38, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, Advocate New Delhi - 110005 [Mobile No. 9810402569]
4. Dua Automobile and Dua Auto Sales Mr. Syed Asif Iqbal, Shop No. 20, Bata Chowk, NIT, Faridabad, Advocate Haryana - 121001 [Mobile No. 9650857524] And Plot No. 20, Bata A Colony, NIT Faridabad Haryana- 121001 CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 16 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
5. Hunny Bunty Automobile Mr. Davesh Vashistha, Shop No. 6, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Advocate New Industrial Town, Faridabad, Haryana [Mobile No. 7982104633]
-121001
37. The mandate of the learned Local Commissioners is as under:
(i) The learned Local Commissioners shall visit the premises of the Defendants as per the above table, to inspect and seize any Counterfeit Products, fully or semi-manufactured Counterfeit Products of the Defendants or any other products bearing the identical OLA Marks;
(ii) If knowledge is acquired of any other premises than the aforesaid premises, where the Counterfeit Products could be stored or services can be provided from, the learned Local Commissioners are free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well;
(iii) The learned Local Commissioners shall also inspect and seize any product materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked Counterfeit Products or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the Counterfeit Products can take place;
(iv) The learned Local Commissioners shall also obtain the details as to since when the Counterfeit Products are being used by the Defendants under the identical OLA Marks and obtain copies of the accounts if the same is found to be sold in market;CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 17 of 20
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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
(v) The learned Local Commissioners 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 Defendants, and take photocopy and / or record of all such transactions that pertain to Counterfeit Products, if any. The Defendants shall cooperate and give passwords to the computers and the files containing the accounts, if the same is stored on the computer or a specific software;
(vi) After preparation of the inventory, the Counterfeit Products under the identical OLA Marks including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, banners, signage, cartons and other material bearing the identical OLA Marks and packaging which are similar to the identical OLA Marks shall be released to the Defendants on superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.
(vii) The learned Local Commissioners shall, along with the report of the Local Commissioner, file in a sealed condition one sample of each of the Counterfeit Products seized from the Defendants' premises;
(viii) The learned Local Commissioners are also permitted to break open the locks, with police help, if access to the premises where the Counterfeit Products have been stocked / manufactured, is denied to the Commissioners;
(ix) Upon being requested, the concerned Station House Officer (SHO) shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the Commissions, as per this order;
CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 18 of 20This 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
(x) The learned Local Commissioners are permitted to take photographs and videos of the proceedings of the Commissions, if it is deemed appropriate. Two representatives of the Plaintiff, which would include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the learned Local Commissioners;
(xi) The learned Local Commissioners, while executing the Commissions, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendants, except for the purposes of the execution of the Commissions. The Commissions shall be executed in a peaceful manner.
38. A copy of this Order be provided to the learned Local Commissioners and the same will be served upon the Defendants by the learned Local Commissioners at the time of execution of the Commissions.
39. The fees of the learned Local Commissioners is fixed at ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each excluding out of pocket expenses, travel, lodging etc. All the aforesaid expenses shall be borne by the Plaintiff and paid in advance to the learned Local Commissioners named hereinabove.
40. The Commissions shall be executed on 26.09.2025, and the report of the learned Local Commissioners shall be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
41. The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC shall be done within two weeks after the execution of the Commissions.
42. It is directed that this Order shall be uploaded on the Court's website after the execution of the Commissions is completed, to enable effective execution thereof.
43. List before this Court on 21.01.2026.
CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 19 of 20This 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11
44. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2025/ 'A' CS(COMM) 991/2025 Page 20 of 20 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 03/10/2025 at 22:04:11