Delhi High Court - Orders
Hdmi Licensing Administrator Inc vs M/S Ekkaa Electronics Industries ... on 28 July, 2025
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 755/2025
HDMI LICENSING ADMINISTRATOR INC .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Prabhu Tandon, Mr. Kripa
Pandit, Ms. Pranjali Arya, Mr.
Christopher Thomas, Mr. Bhanu
Gupta & Ms. Annanya, Advs.
Versus
M/S EKKAA ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES
PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR .....Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 28.07.2025 I.A. No.17902/2025 (Exemption from pre-institution Mediation)
1. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("CC Act").
2. 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.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
IA No.17903/2025 (O-XI R-1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
4. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1 (4) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 seeking leave to file additional documents under the CC Act.
5. The Plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
6. Accordingly, the Application stands disposed of.
I.A. No.17904/2025 (Extension of time to file Court Fees)
7. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking exemption from payment of Court Fees at the time of the filing of the Suit.
8. Considering the submissions made in the present Application, time of two weeks is granted to file the Court Fees.
9. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 17905/2025 (Exemption from filing apostilled pleadings & power of attorney of authorized signatory)
10. The Plaintiff has filed the present application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking exemption from filing apostilled version of the pleadings and Power of Attorney of its authorized signatory.
11. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the Plaintiff is exempted from filing apostilled version of the pleadings and Power of Attorney of its authorized signatory, at this stage.
12. The apostilled version thereof be filed subsequently.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the present Application is disposed of.
I.A. No.17906/2025 (Exemption from advance service of the Defendants)
14. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of the 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 CPC, seeking exemption from advance service to the Defendants.
15. Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, submits 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 Trade Mark.
16. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an urgent ex parte ad- interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioner, the exemption from advance service to the Defendants is granted.
17. The Application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 755/2025
18. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.
19. Issue Summons 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 four weeks from the date of the receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement(s), the Defendants shall also file an Affidavit(s) of Admission / Denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the Written Statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
21. Liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to file Replication(s), if any, within thirty days from the receipt of the Written Statement(s). Along with the Replication(s) filed by the Plaintiff, an Affidavit(s) of Admission / Denial of the documents of Defendants be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the Replication(s) shall not be taken on record.
22. The Parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case any Party is 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 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 Joint Registrar on 25.09.2025 for completion of service and pleadings.
I.A. No. 17900/2025 (U/O XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)
25. Issue Notice through all permissible modes upon filing of the Process Fees.
26. The present Suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing the "HDMI" Trade Mark of the Plaintiff, the device mark , for "HDMI HIGH-
DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the 3D shape mark , and HDMI receptacle mark including the HDMI receptacle Port, passing off their goods and services as that of the Plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs.
27. The Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in San Jose, California, USA. The Plaintiff is the successor- in-interest to HDMI Licensing, LLC, and the Licensing Agent to the Founders. Responsibilities include but not limited to administering the licensing of the HDMI Specification, facilitating and maintaining the HDMI 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 Adopters, policing, and enforcement of the HDMI Trade Marks. The HDMI Forum, Inc. is composed of leading consumer electronics, PC, mobile, and cable manufacturers and ecosystem stakeholders who participate in the collaborative development of new HDMI specifications and standards.
28. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the HDMI Founders have designated Authorized Testing Centres ("ATC"), where licensed HDMI Adopters shall submit a representative sample of the first production model of each category of Licensed Product for compliance testing prior to mass production and/or distribution. For a Licensed Product to claim conformance to the HDMI Specification and/or bear any HDMI Trade Marks, it must implement all portions of the HDMI Specification required for the specific type of Licensed Product and pass all applicable testing procedures. Each Adopter is responsible for submitting Licensed Products to an ATC, and performing subsequent tests to ensure that the Licensed Products function correctly, comply fully with the HDMI Specification, and maintain interoperability.
29. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff plays a critical role in ensuring that products bearing HDMI connectors and marks conform to the technical and legal standards set forth under the HDMI Adopter Agreement. It oversees a global ecosystem of adopters, manages a proprietary compliance program, and enforces Trade Mark and Shape Mark rights to maintain the integrity of the HDMI technology as the well-known technology for audio visual digital interface. The Plaintiff is responsible for licensing HDMI Trade Marks for both components and end-user License Products, and ensures that all usage of the HDMI Trade Marks on products and associated branding materials are 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 subject to contractual authorization as per the HDMI Adopter Agreement.
30. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff manages the HDMI Adopter Agreement, which governs the use of the HDMI specifications, branding elements, and licensing structure globally. The HDMI Adopter Agreement is a license agreement that manufacturers must enter into with the Plaintiff if they wish to manufacture, sell, or distribute products that incorporate HDMI technology or display the HDMI Trade Marks. A licensed product is one that is manufactured by a company that has become an official HDMI Adopter by signing and entering into the HDMI Adopter Agreement with the Plaintiff. This status grants the manufacturer a license to use the HDMI Trade Marks and also provide protection from Necessary Claim Adopters, who are required to pay an annual licensing fee and per-unit royalties, as defined by the Adopter Agreement to maintain their status.
31. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the HDMI Adopters are listed on the Plaintiff‟s website at https://www.hdmi.org/adopter/adoptersaffiliates which demonstrates Plaintiff‟s licensing and enforcement structure which spans over 2000+ licensed HDMI Adopters globally, reflecting the commercial scale and global penetration of the HDMI brand. As per the HDMI Adopter Agreement, in countries where the HDMI Trade Mark is registered the manufacturer should be using the HDMI logo with „R‟ notation, i.e., "HDMI®". HDMI Adopters can also display their HDMI Adopter Certificate which has a unique QR code, and the scan of the QR code further corroborates the HDMI.org website adopter listing for verification. A list of the eight active HDMI Adopters in India is reproduced hereunder:
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 Adopter Adopter Country Status Entered On ID 33867 Centre for India Active Mar 12, 2024 Developmental of Adopter Advanced Computing 34022 Daikoku India Active June 12, 2024 Innovations LLP Adopter 32596 Dixon India Active Sep 27, 2021 Technologies Adopter (India) Limited 33727 Futura India Active Nov 20, 2023 Automation Pvt. Adopter Ltd.
33127 RURU Tek India Active Jul 07, 2022
Private Limited Adopter
3214 TEKTRONIX. India Active Apr 14, 2009
INC. Adopter
32944 Velankani India Active Feb 22, 2022
Electronics & Adopter
Automotive
Private Limited
33504 Videotex India Active May 31, 2023
International Pvt. Adopter
Ltd.
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
32. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is the agent responsible for licensing the HDMI Specification. Every end-user product, such as a Digital TV or tablet, must be a duly Licensed Product even though it may contain one or more duly licensed components. For an HDMI product to be licensed and authorized to bear the Plaintiff‟s "HDMI" Trade Marks, two conditions have to be followed. Firstly, the manufacturer of the finished end-user product must be a licensed HDMI Adopter, and, secondly, the finished end-user product must satisfy all requirements as defined in the HDMI Adopter Agreement including but not limited to passing compliance testing at an HDMI ATC, HDMI Forum ATC or through self testing.
33. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in and around the year 2002, leading consumer electronics manufacturers including Hitachi Maxell Ltd. (now Maxell), Panasonic Corporation, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Silicon Image Inc. (now Lattice Semiconductor), Sony Corporation, Technicolor S.A. (now Vantiva), and Toshiba Corporation ("HDMI Founders") came together to create the HDMI.
34. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of several Trade Marks in India associated with the HDMI brand including the "HDMI" Word Mark, the Device Mark , for "HDMI HIGH-DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the 3D Shape Mark , and 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 HDMI Receptacle Mark. The details of the Trade Mark Registration of the Plaintiff in India are set out in Paragraph No. 16 of the Plaint which are set out as under:
Trade Mark Application Class User Date of Valid
No. Claimed Registration Upto
HDMI 1339207 09 01.08.2002 17.02.2005 17.02.2035
1339206 09 01.08.2002 17.02.2005 17.02.2035
5317872 09 Proposed 07.02.2022 07.02.2032
to be used
5317871 09 Proposed 07.02.2022 07.02.2032
to be used
35. The details of the Trade Mark Registration of the Plaintiff outside of India are set out in Paragraph No. 17 of the Plaint which are set out as under:
Trade Mark Country Class Application Application Registration No. Date Valid Upto HDMI Argentina 9 2880736 25.10.2006 25.10.2026 HDMI Brazil 9 827214340 16.10.2007 16.10.2027 HDMI China 9 19118900 21.06.2019 20.06.2029 PREMIUM CERTIFIED CABLE and Design 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 HDMI HIGH Colombia 9 532520 04.02.2016 04.02.2026 DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE Stylized HDMI United 9 3286924 24.07.2007 24.07.2027 States of America HDMI Thailand 9 277329 26.07.2006 25.07.2026 HDMI South 9 200503073 16.02.2005 16.02.2025 Africa HDMI Mexico 9 949482 28.08.2006 28.07.2026 HDMI Malaysia 9 6013540 07.03.2008 01.08.2026 HDMI Indonesia 9 15431 03.03.2008 01.08.2026 HDMI HIGH EUTM 9 15090095 28.06.2016 09.02.2026 DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE PREMIUM CERTIFIED CABLE and Design
36. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff‟s HDMI Specification has become ubiquitous for connecting HD transmitters and displays. Since around 2009, nearly all modern digital TVs, AV receivers, DVRs, Blu-ray players, set-top boxes, multimedia PCs, laptops, gaming consoles, camcorders, digital cameras, and mobile devices 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 incorporate HDMI ports based on this Specification.
37. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the HDMI Word Mark and stylized HDMI logo/device are recognized worldwide as indicators of compliance with HDMI specifications and licensing standards. The Plaintiff has invested significant time, effort, and resources into developing, maintaining, and promoting these Marks and has created a unified system under the HDMI Adopter Agreement, which governs their lawful use. The unique combination of the HDMI Word Mark, its visual stylization, and the HDMI connector shapes together form a family of Marks that are inherently distinctive and function as exclusive source identifiers for compliant and authorized HDMI products and components.
38. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the members of the electronics trade, manufacturing industry, regulatory bodies, and the general public associate the HDMI Trade Marks exclusively with the Plaintiff‟s proprietary specifications and compliance-driven ecosystem. The Plaintiff‟s HDMI Trade Marks are distinctive and serve as exclusive source identifiers for HDMI-compliant hardware and software components. If a manufacturer bears the HDMI Trade Marks or represents to the general public that its products conform to the HDMI Specifications without having obtained the necessary license from Plaintiff, then such conduct amounts to counterfeiting of the Plaintiff‟s HDMI products. Such use not only infringes the Plaintiff‟s statutory rights in its Trade Marks but also constitutes as a deliberate attempt to pass off its counterfeit products as genuine and licensed HDMI products.
39. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff‟s global HDMI Adopter program governs the use of HDMI 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 specifications and registered Trade Marks across a wide spectrum of industries including consumer electronics, mobile devices, computers, and digital displays. The HDMI brand is embedded in billions of consumer products worldwide, and the use of HDMI ports, connectors, and logos is subject to strict licensing requirements and compliance with HDMI Specifications.
40. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff displays and promotes its services, brand, specifications, and licensing framework through its official website, accessible at https://www.hdmi.org. This domain functions as the primary global platform through which Plaintiff provides comprehensive information about the HDMI specifications, technical standards, registered Trade Marks, and compliance programs governed under the HDMI Adopter Agreement. The website serves not only as an informational repository but also as a functional extension of the Plaintiff‟s licensing and brand governance operations. The Plaintiff is the owner and registrant of the aforementioned domain name since 19.12.2001 and is the operator of the said domain name which continues to be valid and subsisting. Screenshots from the website of Plaintiff are reproduced herein below:
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
41. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff has a strong social media presence across multiple platforms, engaging with a wide audience through regular updates and interactive posts. The Plaintiff has regularly and continuously promoted its globally recognized HDMI Trade Marks, specifications, and licensing program through extensive brand governance, adopter engagement, and compliance awareness initiatives.
42. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff further submits that it has been using the "HDMI" Trade Mark since its adoption, openly, continuously, uninterruptedly, resulting in the "HDMI" Trade Mark becoming a source identifier of the Plaintiff.
43. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Defendant No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing LED TVs and related accessories in the consumer electronics industry. Defendant No. 2 is the sister concern of Defendant No. 1 and is involved in the same trade as Defendant No. 1. The Defendants have no contractual relationship with the Plaintiff and do not conform to the technical and legal standards set forth under the HDMI Specifications. The Defendants are imitating and infringing the Plaintiff‟s registered HDMI Trade Marks without any authorization and permission for the purpose of deceiving and/or duping members of the general public and trade by dealing in the sale/trade/manufacture/retail/use of counterfeit goods of the Plaintiff.
44. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants claim to offer high-quality manufacturing services for LED TVs and boasts partnership with companies such as Boe, Innolux, Mediatek, Panda, Fuji and Milacron. Screenshots of the website of the Defendants are 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 reproduced hereunder:
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
45. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff first became aware of Defendant No. 1 and its infringing activities around March 2023. The Plaintiff found that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing televisions including smart TVs, incorporating HDMI ports ("impugned products") as a standard feature without securing the required license. Additionally, Defendant No. 1 was also found to be using the Plaintiff‟s registered HDMI Trade Marks on its unauthorized products without license.
46. Aggrieved by the unauthorised use of the Plaintiff‟s Trade Mark by Defendant No. 1, the Plaintiff sent a Legal Notice dated 01.03.2023 to Defendant No. l seeking information and confirmation on the use of the Plaintiff‟s HDMI Trade Marks, with or without the issuance of a HDMI Adopter License. Vide the Legal Notice dated 01.03.2023, the Plaintiff pointed out, that as per the Plaintiff‟s records, Defendant No.1 was neither HDMI Founder nor HDMI Adopter and therefore, was provided thirty days to comply with all the requisitions set out in the said Legal Notice dated 01.03.2023 and/or provide the necessary information.
47. Vide e-mail dated 29.10.2024, the Plaintiff once again wrote to Defendant No. 1 informing them that to use the Plaintiff‟s HDMI Trade Mark, Defendant No. 1 must either become an HDMI Adopter or, if sourcing the products from third parties, Defendant No. 1 must provide the necessary documents as outlined in the previous Legal Notice dated 01.03.2023. The Plaintiff did not receive the reply for either of the Notices sent to Defendant No. 1.
48. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff carried out an investigation in February and March 2025 at the 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 premises of Defendant No. 1 and it was revealed that Defendant No.1 was engaged in the manufacturing of the impugned products and illegally using and selling electronic goods, i.e., televisions bearing the Plaintiff‟s HDMI Trade Marks. It was further revealed that the Defendant‟s televisions being manufactured at their facility were smart TVs, and each unit was equipped with two HDMI ports, confirming that the unauthorized integration of HDMI technology on the Defendant‟s impugned products.
49. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants not only affixes the HDMI Trade Marks near the HDMI ports on the televisions but also embosses and reproduces the HDMI Trade Mark on various counterfeit accessories accompanying the counterfeit impugned products, including the remote control and the instruction manual. The unique combination of the HDMI Word Mark, its visual stylization, and the HDMI connector shapes together form a family of Marks that are inherently distinctive and function as exclusive source identifiers for licensed and authorized HDMI products of the Plaintiff. Photographs of the counterfeit remote control and the instruction manual is produced hereunder:
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
50. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants further display the HDMI Trade Marks on their TV user interface on the impugned products. Once the Televisions are turned on, the HDMI Trade Mark is clearly visible on the TV user interface, as well as when a user switches to a different input/ source options, i.e., "HDMI 1" and "HDMI 2" are prominently displayed on the screen. The images of the TV displays are reproduced as under:
51. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 Plaintiff's investigations around April 2025 revealed that Defendants No. 1 and 2 were both engaged in the illegal importing of large quantities of counterfeit electronic products (and parts thereof) bearing the "HDMI" Trade Mark such as HDMI receptacles, ports and connectors. The Defendants are advertising and offering for sale their impugned products bearing the Plaintiff‟s "HDMI" Trade Mark on the E-commerce websites such as www.indiamart.com. The screenshot of the Indiamart Website displaying the products of the Defendants is reproduced hereunder:
52. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Trade Marks are identical, phonetically similar and the products are also identical. Substantial amount has also been spent on advertisements and promotion by the Plaintiff in India.
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
53. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, the pleadings and the documents on record, prima facie, there are hardly any visible differences and/or changes noticeable to the naked eye of an average person with imperfect recollection belonging to the trade and/or to the general public as the impugned products of the Defendants are identically similar to those of the Plaintiff.
54. This is a case of triple identity where the Trade Mark is identical, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical. The Plaintiff being the prior user, Adopter and the registered owner of the Trade Mark "HDMI" is entitled to protection. The identity in the Trade Mark is so close that the two products are indistinguishable.
55. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad-interim ex parte injunction. The Defendants, their proprietors or partners, servants, agents, affiliates, associates, stockists from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, retailing, distributing, importing, exporting any product under the impugned Trade Mark "HDMI", the Device Mark , for "HDMI HIGH-DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the- 3D Shape Mark , and HDMI Receptacle Mark including the HDMI receptacle Port or any other Mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the Trade Mark of the Plaintiff, i.e., "HDMI".
56. Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within four weeks 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 after service of pleadings and documents. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
57. List before this Court on 27.10.2025.
I.A. 17901 /2025 (Appointment of Local Commissioner)
58. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 4 and 9 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the CPC, seeking appointment of Local Commissioners. The Court has considered the merits of the Plaintiff‟s case and has granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction as recorded above in I.A. 17900/2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC.
59. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied with, it is deemed appropriate to appoint the Local Commissioners to visit the Defendants‟ premises at the following addresses:
Sr. No. Particulars Name of the Local
Commissioners
1. M/s Ekkaa Electronics Mr. Apekshit Kalra, Advocate
Industries Private Mobile No. [+91 7838982055]
Limited, Plot No. 366,
Sector-57, Phase-IV
HSIIDC, Industrial Estate,
Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana,
India, 131028
2. M/s Ekkaa Electronics Mr. Sanjay Kalra, Joint
(India) Private Limited, Registrar, High Court of Delhi B 191 Block B DSO Road Mobile No. [+91 9717394835] 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 Industrial Area, Phase 2 Noida, Nepz Post Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India-
201305
60. The mandate of the Local Commissioners is as under:
i) The Local Commissioners shall visit the premises of the Defendants as per the above table, to inspect and seize any impugned products, fully or semi-manufactured infringing products of the Defendants bearing the infringing mark/label "HDMI", the device mark , for "HDMI HIGH-DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the- 3D shape mark and HDMI receptacle mark including the HDMI receptacle Port or packaging which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff‟s „HDMI" mark;
ii) The Local Commissioners are permitted to seize the infringing products at the above premises and if knowledge is acquired of any other premises where the products could be stores, the Local Commissioners are free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well;
iii) The Local Commissioners shall also inspect and seize any product materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers, packaging 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43 materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the manufacturing materials, television sets, remotes, or HDMI-capable devices, cables, receptacles, display boards, sign boards, advertising material, dies or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked impugned goods or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the impugned products can take place;
iv) The Local Commissioners shall also obtain the details as to since when infringing goods or products are being used by the Defendants under the Impugned Trade Mark "HDMI" the device mark , for "HDMI HIGH-DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the- 3D shape mark and HDMI receptacle mark including the HDMI receptacle Port and obtain copies of the accounts if the same is found to be sold in market;
v) The 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 impugned goods, 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;
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
vi) After preparation of the inventory, the infringing goods under the Impugned Trade Mark "HDMI" the device mark , for "HDMI HIGH-DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the- 3D shape mark and HDMI receptacle mark including the HDMI receptacle Port in fully manufactured or unfinished condition, including packaging materials, advertising, promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos, hoardings, banners, signage, cartons and other material bearing the Impugned Trade Mark "HDMI" the device mark , for "HDMI HIGH-DEFINITION MULTIMEDIA INTERFACE", the- 3D shape mark , and HDMI receptacle mark including the HDMI receptacle Port and packaging which are similar to the Plaintiff‟s Trade Mark shall be released to the Defendants on superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained;
vii) The Local Commissioners are also permitted to break open the locks, with police help, if access to the premises where the infringing goods and products have been stocked / manufactured, is denied to the Commissioners;
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
viii) Upon being requested, the concerned Commissioners of Police / Superintendent of Police in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the Commission, as per this order;
ix) The Local Commissioners are permitted to take photographs and videographs 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 Local Commissioners;
x) The 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.
61. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local Commissioners to the Defendants. Copy of the order and complete paper book shall be served by the Local Commissioners upon the Defendants at the time of execution of the Commissions.
62. The fees of the Local Commissioners is fixed at ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) excluding out of pocket expenses, travel, lodging etc. All the aforesaid expenses shall be borne by the Plaintiff and paid in advance to the Local Commissioners named hereinabove.
63. The Commissions shall be executed on 31.07.2025, and the report of the Local Commissioners shall be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
64. A copy of this Order be provided to the Local Commissioners.
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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43
65. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within two weeks after the execution of the Commissions.
66. It is directed that the present Order shall not be uploaded on the Court‟s website until the execution of the Commissions is completed, to enable effective execution thereof.
67. Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.
TEJAS KARIA, J JULY 28, 2025 „gsr/ak‟ 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 01/08/2025 at 22:39:43