Delhi High Court - Orders
Rathi Industries Limited vs Dauji Ispat Private Limited on 19 March, 2025
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~38
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 239/2025
RATHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa and Mr. Anish
Jandial, Advocates.
versus
DAUJI ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 19.03.2025
I.A. 7003/2025 (Exemption)
1. Subject to the Plaintiff filing clearer copies of the documents, which it may seek to place reliance on, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted.
2. Application is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 7002/2025 (for pre-institution mediation)
3. This application is preferred on behalf of the Plaintiff under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation.
4. Having regard to the facts of the present case wherein urgent relief is prayed and in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, as also Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 1 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:08 SCC OnLine Del 3529, exemption is granted to the Plaintiff from Pre- Institution Mediation.
5. Application is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 7005/2025 (extension of time to file court fee)
6. For the reasons stated in the application, Plaintiff is permitted to file requisite Court Fees within a period of 10 days from today.
7. Application is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. 7004/20258. This application is preferred on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 seeking leave to file additional documents.
9. Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
10. Application is allowed and disposed of.
CS(COMM) 239/2025
11. Let plaint be registered as a suit.
12. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendant, through all permissible modes, returnable before the learned Joint Registrar on 27.05.2025.
13. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, Defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiff.
14. Replication be filed by the Plaintiff within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents filed by the Defendant, shall be filed by the CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 2 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:08 Plaintiff.
15. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines prescribed.
16. The Joint Registrar will carry out the admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits.
I.A. 7001/202517. This application is preferred by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
18. Issue notice to the Defendant, through all prescribed modes, returnable on 28.04.2025, before the Court.
19. Reply be filed before the next date of hearing.
20. Plaintiff is a Public Limited Company incorporated under Indian Companies Act, 1956 in the year 1991 and is stated to be engaged in manufacturing and marketing of TMT bars, rods, billets etc. Plaintiff is a licensee company of Rathi Research Centre ('RRC') for use of well known brand RATHI. In the year 2004, Plaintiff coined and adopted brand name STELMAX for its range of TMT bars, metal construction products, including billets, angles, and channels. Plaintiff started using STELMAX/ RATHI STELMAX and its products rapidly gained popularity in general public and have attained a distinct and reputable position in the market.
21. It is averred that Plaintiff having coined and adopted the mark STELMAX in 2004 is the prior user, lawful owner and registered proprietor of the mark. List of registrations in various classes are detailed in the plaint and are stated to be valid and subsisting. Plaintiff also uses the trademark CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 3 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:08 STELMAX for various metals and building construction materials under class 06 such as Stelmax Tmt bars, Stelmax Stirrup Rings, Stelmax Binding Wires etc. In 2020, sister concern Rathi Iron Steel Private Limited ('RISPL') was incorporated and license was granted to RISPL to use the brand name STELMAX. Popularity and success of the marks STELMAX/RATHI STELMAX is evident from the fact that from its inception till date, Plaintiff along with RISPL has made sales of more than Rs. 11,500 crores and the range of products under these marks are exclusively associated with the Plaintiff in the building and construction industry.
22. It is stated that in order to effectively and efficiently cater to the needs of its consumers, Plaintiff has a comprehensive network of more than 125 dealers and to maximize the reach of its products, it has created several listings on various e-commerce websites. Plaintiff along with its licensee company has incurred stupendous promotional expenditure and has promoted and marketed products through various social media platforms as also by erecting multiple billboards and hoardings and the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff and RISPL on promotion for the year 2023-24 are Rs. 125.94 lacs and Rs. 11.95 lacs, respectively.
23. It is stated that Defendant is a private limited company albeit its exact constitution is unknown to the Plaintiff and has illegally and with mala fide intent adopted the impugned mark "RR STEELMAX" for metal construction products such as M.S. Round, TMT bars and billets, angles, channels etc. Defendant has also filed trademark application bearing No. 5978746 for the impugned mark "RR STEELMAX" on 14.06.2023 on a "proposed to be used" basis in Class 06. Defendant has launched its product bearing the impugned mark "RR STEELMAX". In or around September, CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 4 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:09 2023, Plaintiff through its market sources discovered that Defendant is using a deceptively similar mark "RR STEELMAX" for identical goods i.e., TMT bar and accordingly, a cease and desist notice was sent on 10.09.2023 calling upon the Defendant to refrain from unauthorized exploitation of Plaintiff's trademark resulting in infringement, passing off and tarnishment of the marks. However, Defendant is continuing to gain unfair advantage by exploiting goodwill and reputation of Plaintiff's marks.
24. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that Plaintiff is a registered proprietor of trademarks STELMAX/ / STELMAX500 under Class 06 and has every right to seek protection by virtue of Section 28(1) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('1999 Act'). Act of the Defendant in intentionally and frequently and with complete knowledge using identical/deceptively similar mark to Plaintiff's registered marks for similar goods with similar trade channels, amounts to infringement under Section 29 of 1999 Act. Adoption of deceptively similar mark is inducing the customers to believe that Defendant's products emanate from the Plaintiff and/or bear the same quality and reliability as of the Plaintiff and/or there is some connection between them. The element of confusion amongst the members of the public is clearly evident and it is equally evident that being in the same industry, Defendant is attempting to encash on the formidable reputation of the Plaintiff and is thereby violating its common law rights by passing off the goods. Defendant's conduct is in bad faith, dishonest, unethical and unlawful and if the ex parte ad interim injunction is not passed, irreparable harm and injury shall be caused to the Plaintiff in CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 5 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:09 case the Defendant's products are not of the expected quality. The deceptive similarity between the rival marks, according to the Plaintiff is evident from a bare look at the marks, as follows: -
PLAINTIFF'S USAGE DEFENDANT'S USAGE
STELMAX
RR STEELMAX
RATHI STELMAX
RR STEELMAX 500 D
STELMAX 500
25. The image of one of the products of the Defendant bearing the impugned mark is as follows: -
26. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the image of the said product is a glaring example of how the Defendant has made every attempt to come as close as possible to the trademark "STELMAX" of the Plaintiff.
27. Having heard learned counsel for the Plaintiff, this Court is of the view that Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad- interim injunction. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.
28. Accordingly, Defendant, its promoters, directors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, manufacturers, agents, distributors, stockists, dealers, representatives, licensee and/or anyone acting on their CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 6 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:09 behalf are restrained from selling, offering to sell, manufacturing, advertising, promoting or in any manner using impugned mark "RR STEELMAX" and/or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered mark STELMAX with respect to goods falling in Class 06 and/or any other allied and cognate goods amounting to infringement and/or passing off, till the next date of hearing.
29. Plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within a period of two weeks from today.
JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 19, 2025 S.Sharma CS(COMM) 239/2025 Page 7 of 7 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 11/04/2025 at 22:23:09