Upl Limited & Ors vs Ashok Kumar(S) / John Doe(S) & Ors on 22 August, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Upl Limited & Ors vs Ashok Kumar(S) / John Doe(S) & Ors on 22 August, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~47
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 876/2025 & I.A. 20539-45/2025
                                    UPL LIMITED & ORS.                                                        .....Plaintiffs
                                                  Through:                            Mr. C. M. Lall, Ms. Nancy Roy and
                                                                                      Ms. Nida Khanam, Advocates

                                                                  versus

                                    ASHOK KUMAR(S) / JOHN DOE(S) & ORS.                                                    .....Defendants
                                                Through: None

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

% 22.08.2025 I.A. 20545/2025

1. This is an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], filed by the Plaintiffs, seeking permission to file documents in a compact disc ['CD']/DVD.

2. Rule 24 of Chapter XI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 makes it clear that electronic records can be received in CD/DVD/Medium encrypted with a hash value. The said rule is extracted below:

"24.Reception of electronic evidence.--A party seeking to tender any electronic record shall do so in a CD/DVD/Medium, encrypted with a hash value, the details of which shall be disclosed in a separate memorandum, signed by the party in the form of an affidavit. This will be tendered along with the encrypted CD/DVD/Medium in the Registry. The electronic record in the encrypted CD/DVD/Medium will be uploaded on the server of the court by the computer section and kept in an electronic folder which shall be labelled with the cause title, case number and the date of document uploaded on the server. Thereafter, CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 1 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 the encrypted CD/DVD/Medium will be returned to the party on the condition that it shall be produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents and as and when directed by the court/Registrar. The memorandum disclosing the hash value shall be separately kept by the Registry on the file. The compliance with this rule will not be construed as dispensing with the compliance with any other law for the time being in force including Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872."

3. Registry may receive electronic record on CD/DVD so long as it is encrypted with a hash value or in any other non-editable format. The video recording contained in CD be placed in the electronic record of the present suit in a format which is non-editable, so that the same can be viewed by the court during hearing.

4. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of.

I.A. 20544/2025

5. This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from effecting advance service upon the Defendants.

6. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought an ex-parte ad- interim injunction along with the appointment of a Local Commissioner, the exemption from effecting advance service upon the Defendants is granted.

7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 20543/2025

8. This is an application filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to implead Ashok Kumar(s)/John Doe(s) and named as the Defendant No. 1 and the cause title of the present suit be read as 'UPL Limited & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar(s)/John Doe(s) & Ors.'.

9. For the reasons stated in application, the application is allowed.

I.A. 20542/2025

10. This is an application under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 2 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 20541/2025

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

14. The Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents will file the same within 30 days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ['DHC Rules'].

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

16. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 876/2025

17. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

18. Summons be issued to Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 by all permissible modes on filing of process fee. Affidavit of service(s) be filed within two weeks.

19. Since the Defendant No. 1 is Ashok Kumar/John Doe, issuance of summons to Defendant No. 1 is deferred at this stage.

20. The summons shall indicate that the written statement(s) must be filed 1 (2024) 5 SCC 815 CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 3 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statements shall not be taken on record.

21. The Plaintiffs are at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication(s) shall be accompanied by affidavit(s) of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendants, failing 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 parties are placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

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

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

25. List the matter before the Court on 17.10.2025. I.A. 20539/2025 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

26. This application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction against the Defendants.

27. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, supplying, distributing, advertising, promoting, dealing in and/or CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 4 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 using in any manner in the impugned marks - SAIF, AGRI LONCER and/or any product bearing the impugned marks which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks SAAF, , SAAF stylised, LANCER, LANCER GOLD and STARTHENE. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from imitating and copy the original works of the Plaintiffs in its trade dress, labels, devices and logos for SAAF, LANCER GOLD and STARTHENE.

28. The case set up by the Plaintiffs in the plaint, may be summarised as under: -

28.1. Established in the year 1969, Plaintiff No. 1 has a long history of innovation and leadership in the agrochemical industry. The Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 1. The Plaintiffs are the owner of portfolio of the brands SAAF, LANCER, LANCER GOLD and STARTHENE, which are relevant to the present proceedings. 28.2. The Plaintiffs are the 5th largest agrochemical company in the world and has presence in over 138 countries across the world. The Plaintiffs and its group entities manufacture and market a diverse range of agrochemicals, industrial chemicals, chemical intermediates, specialty chemicals, seeds and other agricultural related products, and has 43 product manufacturing facilities worldwide.

Plaintiff's Brand 'SAAF'

29. Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of trade mark SAAF [label], which was conceived and adopted in and around 1999 in relation to fungicides. The details of Plaintiff No. 1's mark [label], which is registered in CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 5 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 Class 05, are provided in paragraph no. 12 of the plaint. It is stated that Plaintiffs have the exclusive right to use the said trade mark. 29.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is also the registered proprietor of the wordmark SAAFILIZER in Classes 05 and 01, the details of which are provided at paragraph no. 12 of the plaint.

29.2. In addition, Plaintiff No. 1 has also filed applications for trademark SAAF [word] and SAAF [label] , which are currently pending registrations. It is stated that the third-parties have filed oppositions against these marks. The details of the same are provided at paragraph no. 13 of the plaint.

29.3. Products sold under the brand SAAF are presently packaged and marketed in unique and distinctive labels/trade-dress .

The above distinctive label/trade dress comprises of inter alia the distinctive brand name SAAF, overall packaging, get-up, layout, colour combination of blue and white, colour scheme, stylization of the mark SAAFin white lettering, hand device with the plant, placement of the hand and plant device, gradation of colours, placement of the brand name SAAF, placement and arrangement of all essential, distinctive and nondistinctive elements.

29.4. The Plaintiff previously used a distinct label/trade-dress i.e., CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 6 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

29.6. The Plaintiff No. 1 has also registered its original labels with the Copyright office. The details of the same are provided at paragraph no. 20 of the plaint.

29.7. The Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3's trademark SAAF has a 20-year legacy. The sales turnover for products sold under SAAF trademark for the period of 2009 to 2024 are provided at paragraph no. 23 of the plaint, is stated to be more than Rs. 1600 crores; with turnover for 2023-24 at Rs. 150 crores. The details of the expenses incurred by Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 towards the advertisement of the brand SAAF during the period of 2018 to 2024 are provided at paragraph no. 24 of the plaint.

29.8. The products under the brand SAAF have been extensively advertised CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 7 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 and promoted on the internet through the website https://www.upl-ltd.com/. The Plaintiffs also maintains its own personalised pages on various social media websites such as www.facebook.com, www.twitter.com, and www.instagram.com to create awareness about its SAAF brand. 29.9. By virtue of such long, continuous and extensive use of the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3's marks, SAAF and SAAF [label], the same have acquired substantial goodwill.

Plaintiff's Brand 'LANCER ' and 'LANCER GOLD'

30. Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of trademark LANCER coined in and around 1993 in respect of insecticides and LANCER GOLD which was conceived and adopted in the year 2004 in relation to insecticides. 30.1. Plaintiff No. 1 is the lawful owner and registered proprietor of trademarks LANCER GOLD [label] and i.e., LANCER [label] in Class 05 in India; the details of the same are provided at paragraph no. 37 of the plaint. The said registrations have been renewed from time to time and are valid and subsisting.

30.2. The products sold under the brand LANCER GOLD are packaged and marketed in the following trade-dress . The Plaintiff No. 1's CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 8 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 said label/trade-dress comprises of inter alia the distinctive brand name LANCER GOLD, colour combination and scheme of orange, yellow, white, and green, gradation of colours, placement of the brand LANCER GOLD in a wave banner device, yellow coloured rays on the background, warrior and horse device, placement and arrangement of all essential and non-essential elements on the label, etc., that constitutes as an original 'artistic work' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957. 30.3. The Plaintiff No. 1 has registered its original label with the Copyright office; the details of the same are provided at paragraph no. 40 of the plaint. 30.4. The details about the advertisements of the product branded under LANCER GOLD trademark are provided at paragraph nos. 42 to 46. 30.5. The sales turnover for products sold and offered under LANCER GOLD and LANCER trademarks for the period of 2009 to 2024 are provided at paragraph no. 47 of the plaint. The turnover for LANCER products for 2009-2024 is pleaded as more than Rs. 100 crores and for LANCERGOLD products for the same period as more than Rs. 1300 crores. 30.6. Plaintiff No. l's LANCER and LANCER GOLD branded products are practically sold at all physical stores across the length and breadth of the country. Further Plaintiff No. 1 has also established a presence in the Indian market through the internet by selling via e-commerce and online retailers like Amazon, Flipkart, Bigbasket and others.

30.7. By virtue of such long, continuous and extensive use of the Plaintiffs marks, LANCER AND LANCER GOLD, the same have acquired substantial goodwill.

Plaintiff's Brand 'STARTHENE'

31. The Plaintiff No. 2's brand STARTHENE was adopted as early as CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 9 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 1986 in respect of inter alia agrochemical products such as insecticides. Plaintiff No. 2 is the lawful owner and registered proprietor of the mark STARTHENE [label] in Class 05 in India. The details of the trademarks obtained by Plaintiff No. 2 under the brand STARTHENE are provided at paragraph no. 59 of the plaint.

31.1. The products sold under the brand STARTHENE are packaged and marketed in the trade-dress and . The aforesaid label/trade-dress comprises of inter alia the brand STARTHENE, unique two triangular banner device, unique colour combination and scheme of red and yellow, placement of the brand name, the face of tiger device, placement of the tiger device, placement and arrangement of essential, distinctive and non-distinctive elements, that constitutes as an original 'artistic work' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act of 1957.

31.2. The Plaintiff No. 2 has also applied for its original label with the Copyright office and is under scrutiny; the details of which are provided at paragraph no. 62 of the plaint.

31.3. The sales turnover for products under STARTHENE for the period of 2006 to 2024 are provided at paragraph no. 64 of the plaint, pleaded as Rs. 2000 crores. The details about the advertisements of the product under STARTHENE are provided at paragraph nos. 65 to 69.

31.4. Plaintiff No. 2 has set-up and maintains its own dedicated pages on various social media websites such as www.facebook.com, CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 10 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

31.5. By virtue of such long, continuous and extensive use of the Plaintiffs marks, STARTHENE, the same has acquired substantial goodwill. Dispute with Defendants

32. It is stated that Defendant No. 2 is engaged in manufacturing of an identical product i.e., fungicide under the impugned mark SAIF/ in a packaging which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's product sold under its mark SAAF and its proprietary packaging/trade-dress .

33. It is stated that Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are partners of M/s Angel Agri Care and suppliers of the products manufactured by Defendant No. 2.

34. It is stated that Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are partners of M/s Agri Science Co. and suppliers of products manufactured by Defendant No. 2.

35. It is clarified that when an order for the impugned product SAIF was placed on the said M/s Agri Science Co. run by Defendant Nos. 5 and 6, it was delivered along with an invoice from the partnership firm of M/s Agri Science Co., run by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4.

36. It is stated that Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are partners of Agri Science Company and supplier of the products manufactured by Defendant No. 2.

CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 11 of 26

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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34

37. It is stated that logo of M/s Angel Agri Care [run by Defendant Nos. 3 and 4], and the logo of M/s Agri Science Co. [run by Defendant Nos. 5 and 6] are visually similar.

38. It is stated that Plaintiffs believes that Defendant Nos. 3 to 8 are marketing and advertising the impugned products bearing the impugned marks; however, it is Defendant No. 2 who is the manufacturer of the impugned products.

39. It is stated that on perusal of the website of Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 at www.angelagricare.com, the Plaintiffs discovered listing of another impugned product namely, 'AGRI SHARP'/ , which also violates the packaging/trade dress of the Plaintiff's brand 'SAAF'/ .

40. It is stated that on additional checks and review of the websites www.agriscienceco.in and www.agriscienceco.com [run by Defendant Nos. 5 and 6] and listing for Defendant No. 7 on e-commerce page at www.indiamart.com, the Plaintiffs found additional impugned products namely AGRI SHARP/ , AGRI LONCER/ , and CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 12 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 AGRI-PHATE/ , which violate the brands of the Plaintiffs, namely SAAF, LANCER, LANCER GOLD, and STARTHENE as they are deceptively similar to the marks and trade dress. It is stated bare review of the impugned products makes it evident that the same are blatant copies of the Plaintiffs' brands. Images of the impugned products obtained from the aforesaid websites are provided at paragraph nos. 105 and 108 of the plaint.

41. It is stated that packaging of the impugned product AGRI SHARP/ , is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered packaging/trade dress , thought it has since been discontinued. The essential features of the Plaintiff's copyrighted packaging has been slavishly copied.

42. It is stated that similarly the packaging of the impugned product AGRI-PHATE/ is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 13 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

43. It is stated that with respect to the impugned product AGRI LONCER/ , the Plaintiffs contends that the impugned mark AGRI LONCER is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark LANCER GOLD and the packaging/trade dress of the said impugned product is also a slavish invitation of the Plaintiff's packaging for the similar product.

44. It is stated that the Plaintiff's representative was informed that the infringing product sold under the impugned mark SAIF can be purchased from 104, Adarsh Plaza, Near Raiya Telephone Exchange 150 ft Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat ['Premise No. 1']. It is stated that Plaintiffs have learnt that the manufacturing unit for these products is located at Tirupati Industrial Estate, Near Mahadev Industries, Rajkot, Gujarat ['Premise No. 2'] and the warehouse for these products is located at Shree Ram Industrial Area, Kotdasangani Road, Lothada, Rajkot, Gujarat ['Premise No. 3'].

45. It is stated that in July, 2024 Plaintiff learnt about Defendant No. 7's CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 14 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

PHATE/ and AGRI LONCER/ had issued a cease-

and-desist notice dated 09.07.2024, however, the same could not be served on the Defendant No. 7's known address.

46. It is averred that Plaintiff's representatives have also found additional premises where impugned goods are manufactured, packaged and stored; however, due to incomplete addresses in this area and owing to the clandestine nature of the operations, identifying the trading names and the proprietors has been difficult. It is stated that accordingly these unidentified are being impleaded as Ashok Kumar/John Doe as Defendant No. 1.

47. Mr. C. M. Lall, learned senior counsel states that Plaintiff is aggrieved by the Defendant's use of the impugned marks SAIF and AGRI LONCER as these marks are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered marks SAAF and LANCER GOLD. He states that the Plaintiffs have statutory and common law rights in its registered trademarks.

47.1. He states that Plaintiffs have no objection to the Defendant's use of the mark SHARP, AGRI SHARP and AGRI-PHATE.

47.2. He states that Plaintiffs have an objection to the trade-dress/packaging used by Defendants for the impugned products bearing the impugned marks SAIF, AGRI SHARP, AGRI LONCER and AGRI-PHATE, as these trade- dresses are a slavish copy of the trade-dresses created by the Plaintiffs for its identical products. He states that the Plaintiffs have a copyright in these trade-dresses as these are original works owned by the Plaintiffs.

CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 15 of 26

This is a digitally signed order.

48. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record.

49. The present suit relates to Plaintiff's claim of violation of its registered trademarks and copyright in its trade-dress by the Defendants. A comparative table of the Plaintiffs products and the Defendants is given below: -

Plaintiff's trademarks and Defendants products products bearing the impugned marks and trade-dress CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 16 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 17 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34

50. A comparative table setting out the comparison of the Plaintiff's marks and Defendant's impugned marks as well as the packaging of the Plaintiff's products and Defendant's products as set out in paragraph no. 2 of the plaint is as under: -

                                                 Earlier Marks                                 Impugned Marks
                                                        SAAF                                              SAIF
                                                     LANCER                                      AGRI LONCER
                                      Stylizations and Placement                        Impugned Stylizations and
                                                                                                     Placement




                          CS(COMM) 876/2025                                                                                Page 18 of 26

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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 Plaintiff No. 1's hand- Impugned devices device with the plant Plaintiff No. 's device of Impugned Device 'Warrior on Horse' Plaintiff No. 2's Device of Impugned device Tiger

51. This Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiffs that the CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 19 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

52. The packaging of the impugned products of the Defendants is strikingly similar to the packaging of the Plaintiff's product. Given the scale of the turnover of the Plaintiffs as set out in the plaint, it appears that Defendants with an intention to gain advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's products, have adopted deceptively similar marks and packaging/trade-dress of the Plaintiff's products.

53. Since the products in question are fungicides and insecticides, which are toxic in nature and have impact on the health of the consumers, it is imperative that the consumer should not be misled to believe that the Defendant's products are the products of the Plaintiffs. It is therefore in public interest that Defendants should be restrained from using the impugned marks SAIF and AGRI LONCER and from using the impugned packaging/trade-dress / / / .

54. In view of the aforesaid and on basis of the averments made in the plaint, this court is of the prima facie opinion that a case of infringement and passing off has been made out by the Plaintiffs; the act of the Defendants by employing the replicas of the Plaintiff's registered trademark/label/packaging/trade-dress on its products will lead to a consumers of average intelligence to believe that they are purchasing an authorized product of the Plaintiffs.

CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 20 of 26

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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34

55. In view of the aforesaid, the Plaintiffs have established a prima Facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Defendants. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss in case the Defendants are not restrained from the using the Plaintiff's trademark/ packaging/trade-dress.

56. Consequently, until the next date of hearing, the Defendants, their partners, directors, group / sister concern companies, subsidiaries, principals, third party manufacturers, marketers, sellers, retailers, wholesalers, officers, importers, exporters, employees, agents, distributors, suppliers, affiliates, subsidiaries, franchisees, licensees, trading concerns, representatives and assigns are restrained from using the impugned marks SAIF and AGRI LONCER [which are deceptive similar to Plaintiff's trademarks SAAF, LANCER and LANCER GOLD] and from using the impugned packaging/trade-dress / / / , [which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs packaging/trade-dress / / / ] as a trade mark or part of a trade mark, or as a label/trade dress or part of a label/trade dress, or as a device mark or part of a device mark, or in any other manner whatsoever, in CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 21 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 relation to any goods or services, 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 or services, thereby amounting to passing off the Defendants' products as that of the Plaintiffs' products under the marks SAAF, LANCER, LANCERGOLD and STARTHENE and their associated stylizations, logos, devices, labels, trade dress/ packaging.

57. In view of the fact that the Plaintiffs have sought appointment of Local Commissioner(s) to seize the infringing and counterfeit products, the very purpose of grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction would be defeated if the Defendants are given notices contemplated in Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC prior to the execution of the commission. Hence, it is directed that the Plaintiffs shall serve notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC at the time of execution of the Local Commission(s) which shall not be later than two (2) weeks from today.

58. Issue notice to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 8 through all modes.

59. Since the Defendant No. 1 is Ashok Kumar/John Doe, issuance of notice to Defendant No. 1 is deferred at this stage.

60. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of three (3) weeks.

61. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

62. List before the Court on 17.10.2025.

I.A. 20540/2025

63. This application under Order XXVI Rule 9, 10, 16(b) and (c) CPC read with Section 151 CPC, has been filed by the Plaintiffs for appointment CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 22 of 26 This is a digitally signed order.

a. 104, Adarsh Plaza, Near Raiya Telephone Exchange 150 ft Ring Road, Rajkot, Gujarat ['Premise No. 1'];

b. Tirupati Industrial Estate, Near Mahadev Industries, Rajkot, Gujarat ['Premise No. 2']; and c. Shree Ram Industrial Area, Kotdasangani Road, Lothada, Rajkot, Gujarat ['Premise No. 3'].

64. Mr. C. M. Lall, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiffs states that three (3) local commissioners may be appointed to visit the aforesaid properties of the Defendants.

65. 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 Local Commissioners to visit the aforementioned premises of the Defendants. Accordingly, the following persons are appointed as Local Commissioner(s), with direction(s) to visit the respective premises of the Defendants: -

                                     Sr.    Defendant's Location                                      Details of the Local
                                     No.                                                                 Commissioner
                                      1. 104, Adarsh Plaza, Near                                Mr. Om Ram, Advocate
                                         Raiya Telephone exchange                               [Enrolment No. D/7403/2023,
                                         150 ft Ring Road, Rajkot,                              Mob. No. 9013685427,
                                         Gujarat                                                e-mail:
                                                                                                [email protected]]
                                        2. Tirupati Industrial Estate,                          Mr. Deepak Antil, Advocate
                                           Near Mahadev Industries,                             [Enrolment No. D/3993/2023,
                                           Rajkot, Gujarat                                      Mob. No. - 8901085867,
                                                                                                e-mail:
                                                                                                [email protected]]
                                        3. Shree Ram Industrial Area,                           Mr. VP Garg, Advocate
                                           Kotdasangani           Road,                         [Enrolment No. D/79/1979,
                                           Lothada, Rajkot, Gujarat                             Mob. No. - 9899131510,


                          CS(COMM) 876/2025                                                                                Page 23 of 26

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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 e-mail:

[email protected]]

66. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under: -

i. The Local Commissioner(s) shall visit the said premises of the Defendants as mentioned above, to inspect and seize the infringing products of the Defendants bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs.

ii. The Local Commissioner(s) are permitted to seize the infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs at the above premises and if knowledge is acquired of any other premises where the goods could be stored, the Local Commissioner(s) are free to record the same and then visit the other premises and conduct a seizure there as well.

iii. The Local Commissioner(s) 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, dyes or blocks, unfinished, packed, unpacked infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs or any other documents, wrapper etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs can take place.

iv. The Local Commissioner(s) shall also obtain the details as to since when infringing goods bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs are being used by the Defendants and obtain copies of the accounts, if the same is found to be sold in market.

CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 24 of 26

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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 v. The Local Commissioner(s) 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 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 infringing products bearing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs, 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 registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs or the marks, which are similar to the Plaintiff's trademarks, shall be released to the Defendants on Superdari. The monetary value of the stock shall also be ascertained.

vii. The Local Commissioner(s) are 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.

viii. Upon being requested, the concerned, the Station House Officer ['SHO'] and the concerned DCP at Rajkot, Gujarat having jurisdiction over the aforesaid locations shall render necessary cooperation for execution of the commission, as per this order.

ix. The Local Commissioner(s) are permitted to take photographs and CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 25 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34 videography of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate. Two (2) representatives of the Plaintiffs, which may include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the Local Commissioner.

x. The Local Commissioner(s), while executing the commission, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the Defendants, except for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall be executed in a peaceful manner. xi. Copy of the order and complete paper book shall be served by the Local Commissioner(s) upon the Defendants at the time of execution of commission.

67. The order passed today shall be communicated by the Local Commissioner(s) to the Defendants.

68. The fee of each of the Local Commissioner(s) is fixed at Rs. 2,50,000/-; excluding out of pocket expenses, travel expenses and accommodation expenses etc., which is to be borne by the Plaintiffs.

69. The Local Commission(s) shall be executed within two (2) weeks. The report of the Local Commissioner(s) shall be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.

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

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

72. Copy of this Order to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 22, 2025/rhc/MG CS(COMM) 876/2025 Page 26 of 26 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 19/09/2025 at 21:37:34

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders