IP.ADJUTOR

Monday, February 23, 2026

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sanjeev Builders

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has once again emphasised that courts must adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach while dealing with applications for amendment of pleadings. In this landmark ruling, the Court permitted the plaintiffs in a suit for specific performance to enhance the amount claimed as damages in the alternative relief, even after decades of litigation. The judgment clarifies that technical objections like delay or limitation should not defeat genuine claims when no real prejudice is caused to the other side and the amendment helps in deciding the real dispute between the parties.

Factual Background Sanjeev Builders Private Limited entered into an agreement with Life Insurance Corporation of India for purchase of certain property. When LIC failed to perform its part, the builders filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement and, in the alternative, claimed damages. After the suit had been pending for many years, the builders realised that the value of the property had increased substantially due to passage of time and delay in the case. They therefore sought to amend the plaint to claim a much higher amount as damages in the alternative to specific performance.

Procedural Background The suit was filed in 1986 before the Bombay High Court. In 2017, the plaintiffs moved an application seeking amendment of the plaint to enhance the damages claim. The Single Judge allowed the amendment while keeping the question of limitation open for decision at the time of trial and also permitted LIC to file an additional written statement. LIC challenged this order before the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, LIC approached the Supreme Court contending that the amendment was highly belated, barred by limitation, hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, and amounted to constructive res judicata.

Reasoning and Decision of Court The Supreme Court carefully examined all the objections raised by LIC and rejected them one by one. The Court held that amendments in pleadings should be granted liberally if they are necessary to determine the real controversy and do not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposite party. Mere delay in filing the application for amendment is not a sufficient ground to reject it, especially when the suit is still at the pre-trial stage.

The Court clarified that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, which bars a subsequent suit for a relief that could have been claimed earlier, has no application to an amendment sought in an already pending suit. It also held that the principle of constructive res judicata was not attracted because there was no earlier adjudication on merits.

Referring to the Specific Relief Act, the Court noted that the law itself contemplates amendment of the plaint at any stage to include a claim for compensation. The previous judgment of the Supreme Court between the same parties (on impleadment of an assignee) was distinguished on facts and held not applicable to the present case.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed LIC’s appeal, upheld the orders of the High Court permitting the amendment, and directed that the issue of limitation shall be decided during the trial on merits. The amendment was allowed so that the plaintiffs could claim enhanced damages without forcing them to file a fresh suit, thereby avoiding multiplicity of litigation.

Point of Law Settled in the Case This judgment settles several important principles governing amendment of pleadings in civil suits, particularly in suits for specific performance:

Courts must be extremely liberal in allowing amendments if they help in deciding the real dispute and no irreparable prejudice is caused to the other side.
Delay by itself is not a ground to reject an amendment application, especially when the suit has not yet reached the stage of trial.
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not apply to amendments sought in an existing suit.
The provisos to Sections 21(5) and 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act expressly permit amendment of the plaint at any stage to include or enhance a claim for compensation.
Even where a fresh suit on the amended claim might appear barred by limitation, the court can still allow the amendment if it serves the ends of justice, leaving the limitation issue to be decided at trial.
An amendment relating only to the quantum of relief based on facts already pleaded in the plaint does not change the nature of the suit and should ordinarily be allowed.
Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court should be more liberal because the opposite party will have full opportunity to meet the amended case.
The court may direct that the amendment shall not relate back to the date of the original suit if it is necessary to protect any right accrued to the defendant by lapse of time.

Case Detail Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another Date of Order: 01 September 2022 Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22443 of 2019) Neutral Citation: (2022) 16 SCC 1 Name of Court: Supreme Court of India Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Suggested Titles for the Article

Supreme Court Allows Enhancement of Damages Claim in Specific Performance Suit After 31 Years
Liberal Amendment of Pleadings: Key Principles Laid Down by Supreme Court in LIC Case
Delay No Bar to Amendment: Supreme Court Permits Higher Damages Claim in Pending Suit
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Does Not Apply to Amendments – Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

Suitable Tags #SupremeCourtJudgment #AmendmentOfPleadings #Order6Rule17 #SpecificPerformance #DamagesClaim #CivilProcedureCode #LimitationInAmendment #AvoidMultiplicityOfSuits #IndianLaw #ContractLaw

Headnote of Article Supreme Court permits amendment of plaint in a 1986 suit for specific performance to enhance the alternative claim for damages even after 31 years, holding that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has no application to amendments in existing suits, pre-trial amendments must be granted liberally, and limitation is a matter to be decided at trial, thereby reaffirming the principle that technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.

=====

Sanjeev Builders filed a 1986 suit against LIC seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell property and claimed alternative damages. After many years of pendency, they applied to amend the plaint to substantially increase the damages amount citing rise in property value and delay in the case. The Single Judge allowed the amendment keeping the question of limitation open for trial and permitted LIC to file additional written statement. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court affirmed the order. LIC challenged it before the Supreme Court on grounds of delay, limitation, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and constructive res judicata. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the amendment.

Points of Law Settled • Amendments to pleadings must be allowed liberally if necessary for determining the real controversy and no injustice or prejudice is caused to the opposite party, especially before commencement of trial. (Para 71, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1)

• Order 2 Rule 2 CPC has no application to an amendment sought in an already pending suit. (Paras 51 & 71.1)

• Mere delay in filing amendment application is not a ground for rejection; the court may allow it and frame limitation as a separate issue for trial. (Paras 71.9 & 32)

• In a suit for specific performance, amendment to enhance the claim for compensation in addition to or in substitution of specific performance is permissible at any stage under the provisos to Sections 21(5) and 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. (Paras 65-67)

• Amendment relating only to the quantum of relief based on facts already pleaded in the plaint does not change the nature of the suit and is ordinarily allowed. (Para 71.10)

Case Detail Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another Order Date: 01 September 2022 Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 22443 of 2019) Neutral Citation: (2022) 16 SCC 1 Name of Court: Supreme Court of India Name of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi #IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

=====

Flipkart India Vs Marc Enterprises

Introduction The Delhi High Court has once again underscored that courts must look at real-world developments even at the appellate stage when deciding trademark disputes. In this order, the court allowed Flipkart to place its fresh trademark registrations containing the word “MarQ” on record after the appeal arguments were over and judgment had been reserved. At the same time, the court strongly criticised the delay and imposed a substantial cost on Flipkart, sending a clear message that while justice requires considering important later events, parties cannot be careless with timelines.

Factual Background Marc Enterprises had obtained an interim injunction from the trial court stopping Flipkart from using the mark “MarQ” on its products. Flipkart challenged that order in appeal before the Delhi High Court. While the appeal was pending and after final arguments were heard with judgment reserved, Flipkart secured official registration of two marks – one “Flipkart MarQ” and the other “MarQ by Flipkart”. These registrations gave Flipkart statutory rights over marks that included the very word it was restrained from using. Flipkart wanted the court to see these new registrations because they directly affected whether the injunction against it could continue.

Procedural Background Flipkart filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to bring the registration certificates on record as additional evidence. It argued that these were important later developments that had occurred after the original injunction order and that internal changes in the company caused the delay in producing them. Marc Enterprises strongly opposed the move, saying the documents did not fit the narrow conditions for additional evidence at the appellate stage, there was no proper pleading about the registrations in the appeal, and the application was filed far too late after judgment was already reserved. The court heard both sides on the same day and decided the application immediately without calling for a written reply.

Reasoning and Decision of Court Justice Tejas Karia carefully balanced two competing ideas. On one hand, he accepted that Flipkart had been negligent. The registrations had been granted years earlier, yet Flipkart did not mention them during the entire hearing of the appeal. The explanation of management changes was not found satisfactory. On the other hand, the judge found the documents highly relevant. The entire appeal was about whether Flipkart could be stopped from using “MarQ”. Once Flipkart obtained valid registrations containing “MarQ”, those statutory rights had a direct bearing on the legality and continuation of the injunction. The court held that when subsequent events have a material impact on the rights of the parties, they should be taken into account to do complete justice, even at the appellate stage. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion and allowed the additional documents to be taken on record so that they could be considered while delivering the final judgment in the appeal. However, to penalise the delay and the lack of diligence, the court directed Flipkart to pay a cost of two lakh rupees to Marc Enterprises within four weeks.

Point of Law Settled in the Case This order settles that subsequent trademark registrations obtained during the pendency of an appeal, which directly touch upon the validity and sustainability of an existing injunction order, can be allowed as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC even after final arguments are concluded and judgment is reserved. While the appellate court has wide discretion to admit such evidence when it is necessary to pronounce an effective judgment, unexplained delay in producing the documents may still attract costs so that the other side is not prejudiced by the laxity of the party seeking to rely on them.

Case Detail Title: M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S MARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Date of Order: 07 February 2026 Case Number: FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46/2026 Neutral Citation: Not assigned (Order) Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Suggested Titles for the Article

Delhi High Court Allows Late Trademark Registration Documents in Appeal but Imposes Heavy Cost for Delay
“MarQ” Dispute: Court Permits Flipkart to File Fresh Registrations After Judgment Reserved
Additional Evidence in Trademark Appeal – Relevance Overrules Delay, Says Delhi HC
Supervening Trademark Registrations Can Be Brought on Record Even After Arguments Concluded

Suitable Tags #TrademarkAppeal #AdditionalEvidence #Order41Rule27 #DelhiHighCourt #IPLitigation #TrademarkRegistration #SuperveningEvent #CostImposition #FlipkartMarQ #IndianIPLaw

Headnote of Article Delhi High Court allows additional evidence of subsequent trademark registrations containing the disputed mark “MarQ” under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC in a pending appeal even after judgment reserved, holding the documents necessary to pronounce effective judgment, but imposes cost of ₹2 lakhs for delay and negligence in production.

=====

Flipkart challenged an interim injunction that restrained it from using the mark “MarQ”. While the appeal was pending and judgment had already been reserved, Flipkart obtained registration of two marks containing “MarQ” and filed an application to place the registration certificates on record as additional evidence. The single judge allowed the application, holding that the fresh registrations were directly relevant to decide the validity and sustainability of the injunction, but directed Flipkart to pay costs of ₹2 lakhs to the respondent for the unexplained delay in producing the documents.

Points of Law Settled • Subsequent trademark registrations obtained during the pendency of an appeal, which have direct bearing on the validity of an existing injunction, can be taken on record as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1)(b) CPC even after final arguments are concluded and judgment is reserved. (Paras 12-15)

• While admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage, the court may impose costs on the applicant for negligent or unexplained delay in producing the documents. (Paras 13-15)

Case Detail Case Title: M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. M/S MARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD Order Date: 07 February 2026 Case Number: FAO-IPD 46/2021, CM APPL. 46/2026 Neutral Citation: Not assigned (Order) Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

=====

Sampath Kumar Vs Ayyakanu

Introduction In a landmark ruling that continues to guide civil litigation even today, the Supreme Court of India emphasised that courts should take a liberal approach when a party wants to amend its pleadings before the trial begins. The Court allowed a plaintiff to change a simple suit for injunction into one seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession, highlighting the principle that technicalities should not come in the way of justice when the basic dispute remains the same. The judgment beautifully balances the plaintiff’s right to bring all his grievances in one suit with the defendant’s right to fair defence.

Factual Background The plaintiff owned agricultural land and filed a suit claiming he was in peaceful possession and seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering. The defendant denied the claim and asserted his own possession. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant forcibly dispossessed him. He therefore wanted to amend the plaint to add prayers for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the land. The defendant opposed the amendment, arguing that it would change the entire nature of the suit and take away a valuable right he had earned over time.

Procedural Background The trial court refused the amendment application, observing that the plaintiff could always file a fresh suit for the new reliefs. The High Court upheld this order in revision. Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the Supreme Court. The main question before the apex court was whether a suit filed only for injunction can be converted through amendment into a comprehensive suit for title and possession when the cause for the additional relief arose during the pendency of the original suit.

Reasoning and Decision of Court The Supreme Court carefully examined the proposed amendment and found that the basic structure of the suit remained unchanged. Only the nature of the relief was being expanded. The Court observed that if the plaintiff is free to file a fresh suit on the same facts, there is no reason why the same relief cannot be allowed in the pending suit. Allowing the amendment would prevent multiplicity of litigation and serve the cause of justice.

The Court noted that amendments sought before the trial begins should normally be granted more liberally because the defendant gets full opportunity to meet the new case. Mere delay in moving the application is not a sufficient ground to reject it, especially when the suit has not yet reached the evidence stage. However, to protect the defendant from any prejudice, the Supreme Court directed that the new reliefs of declaration and possession would be treated as having been claimed only on the date the amendment application was filed. This prevented the new claim from relating back to the original date of the suit and safeguarded any right the defendant might have earned by passage of time. The Court also imposed a small cost on the plaintiff for the delay in seeking the amendment.

The appeal was allowed, the orders of the trial court and High Court were set aside, and the plaintiff was permitted to carry out the amendment on the above terms.

Point of Law Settled in the Case This judgment settled several important principles that are followed by courts across the country even after two decades:

Amendments to pleadings before commencement of trial should be allowed liberally if they do not alter the basic structure of the suit and are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties.
The mere fact that a long time has passed since filing of the suit is not a ground to reject an amendment application if the suit is still at the pre-trial stage.
To avoid multiplicity of suits, courts should permit incorporation of a new relief that arises during pendency of the suit, rather than forcing the plaintiff to file a separate fresh suit.
While an amendment normally relates back to the date of the original plaint, the court has power to direct that the amendment shall take effect only from the date of the application so as to protect any valuable right already accrued to the opposite party.
In suitable cases, the court may impose costs as a condition for allowing the amendment to compensate the other side for the delay.

Case Detail Title: Sampath Kumar Vs Ayyakanu and Another Date of Order: 13 September 2002 Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5839 of 2002 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 21709 of 2001) Neutral Citation: (2002) 7 SCC 559 Name of Court: Supreme Court of India Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar

Suggested Titles for the Article

Supreme Court Allows Conversion of Injunction Suit into Title Suit to Prevent Multiplicity
Liberal Approach to Pre-Trial Amendments: Key Takeaways from Sampath Kumar Case
When Can a Simple Injunction Suit Become a Possession Suit? Supreme Court Explains
Amendment of Pleadings – Balancing Justice and Prejudice: Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

Suitable Tags #CPCAmendment #Order6Rule17 #SupremeCourtJudgment #PleadingsAmendment #CivilProcedureCode #AvoidMultiplicityOfSuits #RelationBackDoctrine #PreTrialAmendment #IndianLaw #LandDispute

Headnote of Article Supreme Court permits amendment of plaint to convert a suit for permanent injunction into a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession when dispossession occurred during pendency of suit; directs that new reliefs shall be deemed filed on date of amendment application to protect defendant’s rights, while reiterating liberal approach towards pre-trial amendments to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

=====

The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming peaceful possession of agricultural land. During the pendency of the suit, he alleged that the defendant forcibly dispossessed him and therefore moved an application to amend the plaint to add prayers for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The trial court and High Court rejected the amendment, holding that the plaintiff should file a fresh suit. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitted the amendment, and directed that the new reliefs would be treated as claimed only from the date of the amendment application so as to protect any right the defendant may have earned by passage of time. The plaintiff was also directed to pay a small cost for the delay.

Points of Law Settled • Pre-trial amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally if the basic structure of the suit remains unchanged and the amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties. (Paras 9 & 12; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakanu, (2002) 7 SCC 559)

• Courts should permit amendment to incorporate a new relief that arises during pendency of the suit in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation. (Paras 7 & 11; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakanu, (2002) 7 SCC 559)

• Mere delay in moving an application for amendment is not a ground for rejection when the suit is still at the pre-trial stage. (Para 9; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakanu, (2002) 7 SCC 559)

• An amendment normally relates back to the date of the suit, but the court has power to direct that the amendment shall take effect only from the date of the application so as to protect any valuable right already accrued to the opposite party. (Para 10; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakanu, (2002) 7 SCC 559)

• The court may impose costs as a condition for allowing amendment where there has been delay by the party seeking amendment. (Para 13; Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakanu, (2002) 7 SCC 559)

Case Detail Case Title: Sampath Kumar Vs Ayyakanu and Another Order Date: 13 September 2002 Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5839 of 2002 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 21709 of 2001) Neutral Citation: (2002) 7 SCC 559 Name of Court: Supreme Court of India Name of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar

=====

Sauss Home Products Vs Reckitt Benckiser

Introduction In a clear message on the importance of honesty before the court, the Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction stopping one company from using a bird logo that closely copies another’s well-known mark in the cleaning products market. The case highlights how courts will not tolerate parties who try to mislead them with false evidence, even in hotly contested intellectual property battles. At its heart, the dispute involved two similar flying bird designs used on everyday household items like detergents and cleaning starch, raising questions of who used the mark first and whether one company was unfairly riding on the reputation of the other.

Factual Background Reckitt Benckiser, a well-known name in household products, has long used a robin bird symbol with its Robin brand for cleaning items. Over time, the company updated the design to a more modern flying bird version, which it promoted widely and registered under trademark and copyright laws. Sauss Home Products later started using a very similar flying bird logo on its own washing soaps, powders, and detergents. Reckitt claimed the new logo was almost identical in shape, colour, and overall look, creating confusion among buyers and amounting to passing off its goods as Reckitt’s. Sauss, on the other hand, argued it had been using a similar bird design for many years and held its own registrations. The companies ended up in court after Sauss tried to stop Reckitt from using the design in one city, prompting Reckitt to file its own case in Delhi seeking to restrain Sauss.

Procedural Background Reckitt filed a commercial suit in the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent stop to Sauss’s use of the similar bird logo on grounds of trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. Along with the suit, it asked for an immediate temporary order to prevent Sauss from continuing the use while the case was pending. Sauss opposed this and also challenged the Delhi court’s power to hear the matter at all, saying its business was based elsewhere. After hearing both sides and examining documents, the single judge granted the temporary injunction in Reckitt’s favour and rejected Sauss’s objection on jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, Sauss filed an appeal before the division bench of the same court, arguing that the single judge had erred on several counts, including priority of use and the court’s authority to decide the case.

Reasoning and Decision of Court The division bench carefully reviewed the entire matter and found the single judge’s order fully justified. The turning point was Sauss’s reliance on an old newspaper clipping to prove it had used the bird logo decades earlier. On closer look, the clipping described events that had not yet happened on the date it was supposedly published, making it clearly unreliable. The court noted that once a party places such questionable material before the court, it approaches with unclean hands and cannot expect any favourable interim relief, which is granted only on principles of fairness and equity.

The bench also addressed other arguments raised by Sauss. It held that the mere existence of a parallel case in another city did not prevent the Delhi court from passing a temporary order. On the question of whether Delhi had the power to hear the case, the court observed that the availability of Sauss’s products through online business platforms accessible in Delhi was enough to create a connection with the city. On the core dispute, the judges agreed that the two bird logos were practically the same in appearance and used for identical goods, making confusion likely. Evidence showed Reckitt had built up significant market presence and goodwill with its flying bird design well before Sauss’s proven use. Even though both sides held registrations, the law still allows a passing off claim where one party is deceiving the public. The bench found no reason to interfere with the single judge’s careful exercise of discretion and therefore dismissed the appeal, keeping the temporary restraint in place.

Point of Law Settled in the Case This judgment settles important practical points for intellectual property litigation. First, it reinforces that any party seeking urgent court protection must come with completely clean hands; even a single instance of placing doubtful or fabricated material can cost them the relief. Second, the existence of another pending suit on the same issue does not freeze the court’s power to grant temporary orders. Third, in today’s digital age, the mere presence of goods on widely accessible online marketplaces can establish a court’s authority to decide the dispute. Fourth, appellate courts should not easily overturn a lower court’s interim decision unless it is clearly unreasonable or ignores settled legal principles. Finally, the ruling confirms that even registered trademarks cannot shield a party from a well-founded passing off action when the marks are confusingly similar and goodwill has been established by the earlier user. These principles will guide future cases involving similar logo disputes and interim relief applications.

Case Detail Title: SAUSS HOME PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. RECKITT BENCKISER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Date of Order: 07 February 2026 Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025 Neutral Citation: Not assigned (Oral Judgment) Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation] Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for the Article

Clean Hands Doctrine Triumphs: Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Over Similar Bird Logos in Cleaning Products
Fabricated Evidence Proves Costly: How Sauss Lost Its Fight Against Reckitt’s Flying Bird Mark
Delhi HC Reiterates Honesty is Non-Negotiable in Trademark Interim Relief Cases
Passing Off Wins Again: Court Upholds Injunction in Identical Bird Device Dispute

Suitable Tags #TrademarkDispute #PassingOff #CopyrightInfringement #CleanHandsDoctrine #DelhiHighCourt #InterimInjunction #BirdLogoCase #IntellectualProperty #BrandProtection #IPLitigation

Headnote of Article Delhi High Court dismisses appeal and upholds interim injunction against use of deceptively similar flying bird logo, primarily on the ground that the appellant relied on fabricated evidence, thereby disentitling itself from equitable relief, while reaffirming principles of passing off, territorial jurisdiction through online platforms, and limited appellate interference in discretionary interim orders.

=====

Reckitt Benckiser sued Sauss Home Products for using a nearly identical flying bird logo on cleaning products, alleging passing off and copyright infringement. The single judge granted an interim injunction restraining Sauss. On appeal, Sauss claimed prior use based on an old newspaper clipping and challenged Delhi’s jurisdiction. The division bench dismissed the appeal, finding the newspaper clipping prima facie fabricated, which disentitled Sauss from equitable relief due to unclean hands. The court held the logos were deceptively similar for identical goods, Reckitt had prior goodwill, Delhi had jurisdiction through online availability of goods, and a parallel suit elsewhere did not bar the interim order. The injunction was upheld.

Points of Law Settled • A party relying on a prima facie fabricated document approaches the court with unclean hands and is completely disentitled from any interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. (Paras 52-57; Seema Arshad Zaheer v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2006) 5 SCC 582)

• Section 10 CPC stays only the trial of the suit and does not prohibit passing of interlocutory orders such as interim injunction. (Paras 58-60; Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 69)

• Availability of allegedly infringing goods on IndiaMart website is sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on Delhi High Court in trademark matters. (Paras 61-65; Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8727; Tata Sons (P) Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, 293 (2022) DLT 760)

• Appellate interference with a discretionary order granting interim injunction is permissible only where the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely. (Paras 66-68; Wander India Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd (para 14); Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701)

• Even when both parties hold registrations for identical marks, a suit for passing off is maintainable if prior goodwill and likelihood of confusion are established. (Para 69)

Case Detail

Case Title: Sauss Home Products Vs Reckitt Benckiser Order Date: 07 February 2026 Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 145/2025, CM APPL. 60016/2025 & CM APPL. 75892/2025 Neutral Citation: Not assigned (Oral Judgment) Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi #IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Saturday, February 21, 2026

Gillette Safety Razor Company Vs. Anglo-American Trading Company Ltd.

Introduction:The case of Gillette Safety Razor Company versus Anglo-American Trading Company stands as a classic illustration of how courts interpret patent specifications and distinguish true invention from mere imitation of existing ideas. Decided by the House of Lords in 1913, this dispute revolved around the famous Gillette safety razor and whether a rival product called the “Duplex” razor infringed the patent. The judgment remains relevant today because it explains two fundamental principles of patent law: first, that a patent is only valid if it shows real inventive merit over what was already known; and second, that even a valid patent is not infringed unless the accused product falls squarely within the scope of what the patentee actually claimed and described. The decision shows how the highest court carefully balanced the rights of the inventor with the right of the public to use ideas that were already in the public domain.

Factual Background: King Camp Gillette invented a safety razor that used a very thin, flexible blade instead of the thick, rigid blades common at the time. The blade was held in a special holder with a curved backing and a curved guard. When the parts were screwed together, the thin blade bent into a gentle curve. This bending gave the blade the stiffness needed for shaving and also allowed the user to adjust how close the cutting edge came to the guard. The inventor explained that this curvature was an important feature of his design.

The defendants sold a safety razor under the name “Duplex.” In their razor, the backing and guard were completely flat. There was no curvature, and the thin blade was simply clamped flat between the two flat surfaces. The blade was held firmly enough to shave, but it did not bend or offer the same kind of adjustment as the Gillette razor. The defendants argued that their product was different because it lacked the bending mechanism that Gillette had described as central to his invention.

Procedural Background:The Gillette company had earlier faced challenges to its patent in other cases, leading to an amendment of the specification to limit it strictly to safety razors. In the present action, the company sued the Anglo-American Trading Company and its manufacturer for infringement. At the trial before Mr Justice Parker, the court found the patent valid and held that the Duplex razor infringed it. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision and held that there was no infringement. The Gillette company then brought the matter to the House of Lords, where the final appeal was heard by Lords Kinnear, Atkinson, Shaw, and Moulton.

Reasoning and Decision of Court: The House of Lords carefully examined what Gillette had actually invented and what he had told the public in his specification. Lord Moulton delivered the leading speech. He first looked at an earlier American specification by John Butler, published before Gillette’s patent. Butler had shown a safety razor in which a blade was clamped between two flat cheeks at the end of a handle, with one cheek shaped to act as a guard. Lord Moulton explained that this was a simple and well-understood way of fixing a blade transversely to a handle.

The only real difference between Butler’s razor and the defendants’ Duplex razor was that the defendants used a thin blade while Butler had shown a thicker one. But thin blades for razors were already known from other earlier designs. Therefore, the defendants’ razor involved no new inventive step beyond what Butler had already made public.

Turning to Gillette’s patent, the court held that the patent was valid because it required the special curved holder that bent the thin blade. The words “substantially as described” in the main claim tied the invention to this bending feature. The defendants’ flat holder did not bend the blade in the way Gillette had described, so it did not infringe the patent. In short, the patent protected the clever idea of using curvature to give rigidity and adjustability to a thin blade, but it did not prevent anyone from making a safety razor that simply clamped a thin blade flat between two flat surfaces.

Point of Law Settled in the Case: This case settled an important principle that continues to guide patent law: if the accused product is, in substance, the same as something already described in a prior publication and differs only in non-inventive ways, then either the patent is invalid for lack of novelty or the product does not infringe. The court also reinforced that when a patentee says his invention is “substantially as described,” the claim must be read in the light of the whole specification, including the drawings and the features the inventor treated as important. Optional features may be ignored, but essential features that the inventor highlighted cannot be stripped away to widen the claim. The judgment reminds inventors that they must describe their invention clearly and cannot later argue for a broader monopoly than what they actually disclosed to the public.

Case Title: Gillette Safety Razor Company v. Anglo-American Trading Company Ltd.

Date of Order: 30 June 1913
Case Number: Letters Patent No. 28,763 of 1902
Neutral Citation: (1913) 30 R.P.C. 465
Name of Court: House of Lords
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Delivered by Lord Moulton (with concurring opinions by Viscount Haldane L.C., Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Kinnear and Lord Atkinson)

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for the Article

The Gillette Razor Case: How the House of Lords Drew the Line Between Invention and Imitation
Classic Patent Judgment on Safety Razors: Gillette v. Anglo-American Trading Explained
When a Thin Blade Is Not Enough: Lessons from the 1913 Gillette Patent Dispute
Landmark House of Lords Ruling on Patent Construction and Prior Art – Gillette Safety Razor

Suggested Tags

GilletteDefense, PatentLaw , HouseOfLords , GilletteRazor, PatentInfringement, PriorArt, PatentConstruction, IntellectualProperty, SafetyRazorCase , IPJudgment, PatentValidity

Headnote of the Article

In Gillette Safety Razor Company v. Anglo-American Trading Company Ltd. (1913), the House of Lords held that a patent for a safety razor using a thin flexible blade bent by curved clamping surfaces was valid but not infringed by a rival razor that clamped the blade flat between plane surfaces. The Court ruled that the defendants’ product was substantially the same as an earlier published design and lacked the inventive curvature described in the patent, thereby clarifying that a valid patent protects only what is distinctly claimed and described, not every possible variation of a known mechanical principle.

=====

The Gillette Safety Razor Company patented a safety razor that used a thin flexible blade held in a curved holder, which bent the blade to give it the necessary stiffness for shaving and allowed easy adjustment.

The Anglo-American Trading Company sold the Duplex razor, which clamped a similar thin blade between completely flat surfaces without any bending.

The trial court found the patent valid and infringed, but the Court of Appeal reversed the infringement finding.

The House of Lords dismissed the final appeal, holding that the patent was valid because of the special curved bending feature but was not infringed by the defendants’ flat design, which was essentially the same as an earlier known method.

Points of Law Settled:

A patent claim using the words “substantially as described” must be read with the whole specification and is limited to the essential features the patentee treated as central to the invention, such as the curved bending of the blade. (Per Lord Moulton, (1913) 30 R.P.C. 465 at p. 482)

The public is entitled to make any product that follows a prior publication without inventive step; a later patent cannot monopolise such obvious equivalents. (Per Lord Moulton, (1913) 30 R.P.C. 465 at p. 480-481)

Case Title: Gillette Safety Razor Company Vs. Anglo-American Trading Company Ltd.:30 June 1913: Letters Patent No. 28,763 of 1902:(1913) 30 R.P.C. 465:House of Lords:Lord Moulton (leading judgment, with concurrence of Viscount Haldane L.C., Lord Shaw, Lord Kinnear and Lord Atkinson)

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

=====

Friday, February 20, 2026

Green Energy Resources Vs Union of India

A company based in Sambalpur held a patent for an innovative method to safely treat hazardous industrial waste from aluminium production. The patent lapsed because renewal fees were not paid on time due to the negligence of the company’s appointed patent agent. The company discovered the lapse only later, during the difficult COVID period when physical verification was hard. It approached the Orissa High Court seeking permission to file a restoration application even after the normal deadline had expired. The court found that the company itself was not at fault, had acted diligently, and never intended to abandon the patent. Relying on similar rulings from the Delhi High Court, it held that an innocent patent holder should not lose valuable rights because of an agent’s mistake, especially during the pandemic. The writ petition was allowed. The company was permitted to file the restoration application within thirty days, and the authorities were directed to consider it on merits within two months.

Law settled in the case

Negligence or error by a patent agent, without any fault on the part of the patentee, can be condoned and restoration of a lapsed patent may be permitted.

Case Title:Green Energy Resources Vs Union of India:11.02.2026: W.P.(C) No.19128 of 2024: High Court of Orissa at Cuttack : Hon'ble Justice B.P. Routray

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Mehul Jain Vs The Registrar of Trademark

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously decide his pending trademark application for the word mark 'AMAM' in Class 25 and the associated opposition filed by the respondent, after the hearing had concluded and written submissions were filed but no decision was pronounced despite significant delay. The court issued notice only to the Registrar, dispensed with notice to the opposing party given the limited nature of relief sought, and without examining the merits of the trademark claim or opposition, disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar to decide the application and opposition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

- **Law settled:** In writ petitions seeking mandamus for expeditious disposal of pending trademark opposition proceedings where hearing is complete and submissions filed but decision is unduly delayed, courts may direct the Registrar to decide the matter within a reasonable fixed timeframe without delving into merits, to ensure timely adjudication. (Para 3, 8-9)

**Case Title:** Mehul Jain Vs The Registrar of Trademark.

**Order date:** 18.02.2026

**Case Number:** W.P.(C)-IPD 7/2026

**Neutral Citation:** Not provided in the document

**Name of court:** High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

**Name of Judge:** Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Victoria Cross India Pvt Ltd Vs Victrorinox Ag

The appellant company, Victoria Cross India Pvt Ltd, filed an appeal against a commercial court judgment in a trademark dispute with Victorinox AG, but with a delay of 195 days. The appellant explained the delay through an affidavit citing the death of the key decision-maker during the suit, prolonged injunction preventing business operations for years, the widow suddenly having to handle affairs without experience, her mental health issues, dissolution of a related partnership firm, assignment of trademarks and copyrights to the appellant company, and subsequent changes in directorship and shareholding requiring administrative time at the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The court considered these explanations but found them insufficient to condone the substantial delay, as the appellant failed to show sufficient cause or diligence, leading to rejection of the condonation application and consequent dismissal of the appeal.

Law settled:

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires sufficient cause to be shown convincingly; personal difficulties, family changes, administrative processes, or lack of prior involvement in decision-making do not automatically constitute sufficient cause for a long delay, especially when no satisfactory explanation for inaction or lack of diligence is provided throughout the period.

Case Title:Victoria Cross India Pvt Ltd Vs Victrorinox Ag:17.02.2026:RFA(COMM) 532/2024:2026:DHC:1458:Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs Dhan Singh

Introduction: The Delhi High Court has sent a clear message to litigants in intellectual property matters: you cannot withdraw a patent infringement suit in a way that keeps the door open for filing the same case again just in case the defendant changes its process in the future. In this ruling, the court refused the plaintiff’s request for conditional withdrawal and instead imposed costs on him for dragging the defendant into avoidable litigation. The judgment carefully balances the plaintiff’s right to withdraw his own suit with the need to prevent abuse of court process and harassment of the opposite party.

Factual Background: Pawan Kumar Goel owns an Indian patent for a process to extract Alpha Yohimbine of high purity from a particular species of the Rauwolfia plant. He believed that Dr. Dhan Singh and his company were using the same plant and the same process, and therefore filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, accounts and delivery up of infringing material. Later, after seeing the defendant’s export documents and manufacturing records, the plaintiff formed the view that the defendant was actually using a different species of Rauwolfia. On that basis he concluded there was no infringement and decided to withdraw the suit.

Procedural Background: The plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that the defendant’s product came from a different plant species and therefore did not infringe his patent. He requested the court to allow withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in future if the defendant ever started using the specific plant covered by his patent. The defendant strongly opposed this conditional withdrawal. They placed on record their batch manufacturing records and licence documents to show they had been using the plant species mentioned in the patent for many years. They also pointed out that the plaintiff’s own expert had clearly stated that the defendant’s process was completely different from the patented process. The defendant argued that the entire suit was without any real cause of action and asked for exemplary costs.

Reasoning and Decision of Court: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela carefully examined the patent claims and found that the patent protects a process of extraction, not the plant species itself. The court observed that the plaintiff could not claim infringement only when one plant is used and say there is no infringement when another plant is used, because the patent is on the process, not on the raw material. The judge noted that the defendant had produced clear evidence showing use of the relevant plant species for years, yet the plaintiff’s own expert had already confirmed that the processes were dissimilar.

The court held that the plaintiff was trying to approbate and reprobate at the same time. He could not say there is no cause of action today and at the same time keep the right to file the same case tomorrow if the defendant does something different. Such a conditional withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action was not justified under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found no sufficient grounds for granting such liberty.

As a result, permission to withdraw with liberty was refused. The court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff for putting the defendant through unnecessary litigation when his own expert report had already shown the processes were different. The suit was directed to be listed again for further proceedings.

Point of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment settles that a plaintiff in a patent infringement suit cannot seek withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit merely to keep a hypothetical future cause of action alive when the present suit itself lacks merit or when the plaintiff’s own evidence contradicts the infringement claim. The provision for withdrawal with liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC is not meant to allow a party to reserve the right to re-litigate the same dispute on a “wait and watch” basis. A party who files a suit must stand by its pleadings and cannot blow hot and cold. Courts will impose costs where a litigant drags the other side into court on a weak or inconsistent case.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr. Date of Order: 17 February 2026 Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022 Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1333 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for the Article

Delhi High Court Refuses “Wait and Watch” Withdrawal in Patent Suit, Awards Costs
No Future Reservation of Cause of Action: Key Patent Ruling by Delhi HC
Plaintiff Cannot Blow Hot and Cold in Patent Litigation: Delhi High Court
Costs Imposed on Patent Owner for Frivolous Conditional Withdrawal Attempt

Suitable Tags Patent Infringement, Delhi High Court, Order XXIII CPC, Withdrawal of Suit, Costs in IP Cases, Patent Process, Intellectual Property Litigation, Frivolous Suit, IP Adjutor, Indian Patent Law,

Headnote of Article In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to allow conditional withdrawal of a patent infringement suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action in future. The court held that such liberty cannot be granted where the plaintiff’s own evidence shows no infringement and where the plaintiff is attempting to keep the dispute alive on a hypothetical future change in the defendant’s process. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff for unnecessary litigation.

====

Pawan Kumar Goel filed a commercial suit claiming that Dr. Dhan Singh was infringing his patent for a process to extract a high-purity chemical from a specific plant species. After reviewing the defendant’s manufacturing records, the plaintiff concluded there was no infringement because the defendant was using a different plant species, and filed an affidavit seeking to withdraw the suit. He requested withdrawal with liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC to file a fresh suit in future if the defendant ever used the patented plant. The defendant opposed the conditional withdrawal, producing records showing they had been using the relevant plant for years and pointing out that the plaintiff’s own expert had already confirmed the processes were completely different. The court refused the conditional withdrawal, holding that the plaintiff cannot keep a future right to sue on the same cause of action while admitting the present suit has no merit, and that such liberty requires sufficient grounds which were absent. The court imposed costs on the plaintiff for dragging the defendant into unnecessary litigation and directed the suit to proceed.

Law settled in the case:

A plaintiff cannot seek withdrawal of a patent suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action merely to preserve a hypothetical future infringement when the present suit lacks any real cause of action. Paras 14-19

Liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC is not available unless sufficient grounds are shown; Paras 18-19.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh: 17.02.2026:CS(COMM) 672/2022:2026:DHC:1333:Hon'ble Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

====

Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Coldsmiths Retail Services Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

**Introduction**

Trademark registration in India provides protection for a fixed period, but owners must renew it on time to keep the mark alive on the official register. The law requires the Trade Marks Registry to send advance notices before expiry so that proprietors can apply for renewal. When these notices are not properly served due to errors in the registry records—such as outdated agent details—the proprietor may miss the renewal window entirely. The Delhi High Court’s decision in this writ petition highlights the Registry’s responsibility to maintain accurate records of proprietors and authorized agents after changes like assignment or agent revocation. It shows that procedural lapses by the Registry can prevent fair opportunity for renewal, and courts will step in under writ jurisdiction to correct such injustices and direct renewal where the proprietor acted diligently.

**Factual Background**

A company originally called Nirula’s Corner House Private Limited registered eight trademarks many years ago. Later, it assigned all these marks to Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited through a proper assignment deed. At the same time, the original owner revoked the authority of its previous agent and appointed a new authorized agent, informing the Trade Marks Registry through the required forms. The Registry updated the name of the new owner (the petitioner) in its records for all the marks. However, it failed to update the name of the authorized agent and continued to show the old agent’s name. When the registration period was nearing its end, the Registry sent renewal reminder notices—but it sent them only to the old (revoked) agent and not to the current agent or the petitioner. As a result, neither the petitioner nor its authorized agent received any notice about the impending expiry. The registrations lapsed, and when the petitioner later tried to renew the marks, the online system refused, stating the delay was too long. The petitioner then approached the High Court, arguing that the Registry’s mistake in not updating the agent details and not serving notices correctly deprived it of the chance to renew on time.

**Procedural Background**

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, asking the court to stop the Registry from removing the marks from the register due to non-renewal and to direct the Registry to renew them. The Registry appeared through government counsel but did not strongly contest the factual sequence of events. The matter was heard, judgment was reserved, and the decision was delivered shortly thereafter. The court examined the forms filed by the petitioner and the assignment documents, along with screenshots from the Registry’s own portal showing the errors in agent details.

**Reasoning and Decision of Court**

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela accepted the petitioner’s case that the Registry was fully aware of the change in ownership and the appointment of the new agent because the necessary forms had been submitted well in time. Despite this knowledge, the Registry did not correct the agent’s name in its records and wrongly continued to treat the old agent as authorized. Because of this error, the mandatory advance notices for renewal were never received by the petitioner or its current agent. The court held that the Registry has a statutory duty to maintain accurate records and to ensure proper communication of important notices, especially when it has been informed of changes through official forms. Failing to do so amounts to a violation of natural justice, as the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to renew the marks. The court emphasized that the petitioner had acted diligently by filing the required documents and attempting renewal as soon as it became aware of the lapse. In these circumstances, the lapse could not be held against the petitioner. The court therefore directed the Registry to renew all the eight trademarks with effect from their original expiry date and to restore them on the register without treating the delay as fatal.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**

This judgment settles that when the Trade Marks Registry is duly informed through prescribed forms about a change in ownership or authorized agent, it is legally bound to update its records accurately and to send all future statutory communications—including renewal notices—only to the current proprietor or the newly authorized agent. Failure to make such corrections and serving notices on outdated or revoked agents deprives the proprietor of natural justice and a reasonable opportunity to comply with renewal requirements. In such cases of Registry error, courts exercising writ jurisdiction will intervene to direct renewal of the marks retrospectively, treating the delay as not attributable to any fault of the proprietor, so long as the proprietor has acted diligently and in good faith.

**Case Detail**

**Title:** Coldsmiths Retail Services Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks

**Date of Order:** 17 February 2026

**Case Number:** W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025, CM 162/2025 & CM 164/2025

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:1332

**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi

**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

**Suggested Titles:**

- Delhi High Court Directs Retrospective Renewal of Trademarks Due to Registry’s Failure to Update Agent Details

- Trade Marks Registry’s Error in Not Updating Authorized Agent Leads to Court-Ordered Renewal

- Writ Relief Granted: High Court Restores Lapsed Trademarks After Registry’s Communication Lapse

- Natural Justice in Trademark Renewal – Delhi HC Protects Proprietor from Registry’s Procedural Mistake

**Suggested Tags:** #TrademarkRenewal #TradeMarksAct #DelhiHighCourt #WritPetition #RegistrarOfTradeMarks #NonRenewal #AuthorizedAgent #RegistryError #IPLitigation #TrademarkRestoration #NaturalJustice #TrademarkLawIndia

**Headnote**

Writ petition under Article 226 allowed — Direction to Registrar of Trade Marks to renew eight registered trademarks retrospectively from date of expiry — Registry failed to update records of authorized agent despite filing of prescribed Forms TM-P and TM-M reflecting change of ownership and revocation of previous agent — Renewal notices under Section 25(3) wrongly sent to revoked old agent instead of current agent — Petitioner deprived of opportunity to renew due to Registry’s error — Petitioner acted diligently and in good faith — Lapse not attributable to petitioner — Marks directed to be restored on Register without treating delay as fatal.

======

A company assigned its eight registered trademarks to the petitioner and properly informed the Trade Marks Registry by filing the required forms to update the owner’s name and change the authorized agent, revoking the previous agent. The Registry updated the owner’s name but failed to correct the agent’s name in its records. Renewal notices were sent only to the old revoked agent, so neither the petitioner nor its current agent received them. The registrations expired, and when the petitioner tried to renew, the system blocked it due to excessive delay. The petitioner filed a writ petition claiming the Registry’s error prevented it from renewing in time. The Court agreed that the Registry had been duly informed of the agent change yet wrongly continued using the old agent for communications, breaching its duty to maintain accurate records and ensure proper service of notices. This lapse denied the petitioner a fair chance to renew. Since the petitioner acted diligently, the Court directed the Registry to renew all eight trademarks retrospectively from their expiry date and restore them on the register.

Points of Law Settled:

Once the Trade Marks Registry receives prescribed forms notifying a change in authorized agent and revocation of the previous agent, it is statutorily obliged to update its records accordingly and direct all future communications—including Section 25(3) renewal notices—only to the current agent or proprietor.

Failure by the Registry to correct agent details despite being informed through official Forms TM-P and TM-M, resulting in renewal notices being sent to a revoked agent, constitutes a serious procedural error and violation of natural justice, depriving the proprietor of reasonable opportunity to renew.

Case Title:Coldsmiths Retail Services Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks:17.02.2026:W.P.(C)-IPD 37/2025,2026:DHC:1332:Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

=====

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh

Introduction

In patent infringement litigation, a plaintiff who initiates a suit alleging unauthorized use of a patented process often faces the challenge of proving infringement based on the defendant's actual manufacturing methods. When new evidence emerges during proceedings that undermines the foundational claim of infringement, the plaintiff may seek to withdraw the suit. However, Indian courts scrutinize such requests carefully, particularly when the plaintiff attempts to withdraw conditionally to preserve the right to file a fresh suit later on the same grounds. The Delhi High Court's decision in this case illustrates the strict application of withdrawal provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a plaintiff cannot use withdrawal as a tool to revive a meritless claim or hedge against future contingencies while avoiding consequences for pursuing weak or baseless litigation.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Pawan Kumar Goel, owns Indian Patent No. 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine (also known as Rauwolscine) with purity greater than 90% from Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. He filed the suit claiming that the defendants, Dr. Dhan Singh and another, were infringing this patent by using the same or similar process involving Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla to produce the compound commercially. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing stocks, accounts of profits, damages, and costs. During the proceedings, the defendants filed documents, including Batch Manufacturing Records (BMRs) and export records, showing their process for producing Alpha Yohimbine with over 90% purity. The plaintiff initially believed these documents indicated use of Rauwolfia vomitoria (a different species), which he claimed would not infringe his patent focused on Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. The plaintiff's own expert report, filed earlier, analyzed the defendants' process and concluded it was "absolutely dissimilar" to the patented process. The defendants maintained they used Rauwolfia tetraphylla (covered under the plaintiff's patent claims) alongside Rauwolfia vomitoria, had regulatory licenses since 2014, and had been exporting the product commercially for years without infringement.

Procedural Background

The suit was instituted as CS(COMM) 672/2022, with a counter-claim and various interim applications. After the defendants filed their written statement and documents, the plaintiff filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2025 stating that the defendants' documents confirmed use of Rauwolfia vomitoria, removing the cause of action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the CPC, requesting liberty to file a fresh suit if the defendants later used Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. The defendants opposed conditional withdrawal, arguing no fresh cause of action could arise since the patent protects a process, not a specific raw material species, and the plaintiff's expert had already cleared their process of similarity. They sought dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action and imposition of exemplary costs for frivolous litigation. Arguments were heard, judgment reserved on 11.02.2026, and delivered on 17.02.2026.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the plaintiff's request for conditional withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC. The Court observed that the patent protects a specific process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine with high purity from Rauwolfia species, not the raw material itself. Distinguishing infringement based solely on the species of Rauwolfia used was illogical, as the cause of action for infringement arises from using a similar process, regardless of minor variations in raw material. The defendants' documents, including BMRs, showed use of Rauwolfia tetraphylla, yet the plaintiff's own expert report confirmed the processes were dissimilar, negating infringement. The Court held that the plaintiff could not approbate and reprobate—first alleging infringement from use of Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla, then claiming no cause of action upon discovering Rauwolfia vomitoria, while seeking to reserve rights for future claims on the same species. Such a conditional withdrawal was impermissible, as what cannot be achieved directly cannot be done indirectly. No formal defect or sufficient grounds existed for liberty to file afresh. Since the suit lacked merit from the outset, particularly after the expert report in 2023, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff, payable within four weeks, for dragging the defendants into unnecessary litigation. The suit was not dismissed outright but listed for further proceedings on 08.07.2026.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

This judgment clarifies that in patent infringement suits, withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC requires demonstration of formal defect or sufficient grounds, and courts will deny such permission where the plaintiff seeks to preserve a future claim on the same cause of action after realizing the original claim lacks merit. A plaintiff cannot create artificial distinctions (such as raw material species) to justify conditional withdrawal when the patent covers a process applicable across species variations. When a plaintiff's own expert evidence negates infringement and the suit appears frivolous or unsustainable, courts may impose exemplary costs on the plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 4(b) CPC to deter abuse of process and compensate the defendant for unwarranted litigation.

Case Detail

Title: Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.

Date of Order: 17 February 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1333 (based on standard Delhi High Court neutral citation format for 2026 judgments)

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles:

Delhi High Court Rejects Conditional Withdrawal in Patent Infringement Suit, Imposes Costs for Frivolous Litigation

No Liberty to File Fresh Suit: Delhi HC Denies Plaintiff’s Attempt to Withdraw Patent Case Conditionally

Patent Process Infringement Claim Fails – Delhi High Court Awards Exemplary Costs to Defendant

When Plaintiff’s Own Expert Clears Defendant: Delhi HC Imposes Costs in Patent Suit Withdrawal Bid

Suggested Tags: #PatentInfringement #DelhiHighCourt #OrderXXIIICPC #WithdrawalOfSuit #ExemplaryCosts #AlphaYohimbine #Rauwolfia #IPLitigation #PatentLawIndia #FrivolousLitigation

Headnote

Suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of process patent IN 369150 for extraction of Alpha Yohimbine >90% purity from Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla — Plaintiff seeks withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC with liberty to file fresh suit, claiming defendants use Rauwolfia vomitoria removing cause of action — Court holds patent protects process, not raw material species; distinction untenable — Plaintiff's expert report confirms defendant's process dissimilar, negating infringement — Conditional withdrawal denied as no sufficient grounds; what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly — Exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on plaintiff for unnecessary litigation — Suit listed for further hearing.

=====

**Brief Summary**

Pawan Kumar Goel, owner of Indian Patent No. 369150 for a process to extract Alpha Yohimbine with over 90% purity from Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla, filed a suit claiming Dr. Dhan Singh and another were infringing it by using the same or similar process to make and export the compound. During the case, the defendants filed documents like manufacturing records showing their process and raw materials. The plaintiff then filed an affidavit stating these documents showed use of Rauwolfia vomitoria (a different plant), meaning no infringement occurred, and asked to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one later if the defendants used Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. The defendants opposed this conditional withdrawal, arguing their process was different as confirmed by the plaintiff's own expert report, they had used Rauwolfia tetraphylla for years with valid licenses, and the suit lacked any real basis for infringement. The Court rejected the conditional withdrawal, holding that the patent protects the extraction process itself, not a specific plant species, so distinguishing infringement based only on the plant used made no sense. Since the plaintiff's expert had already found the processes dissimilar and the suit appeared baseless, permission to file afresh was denied. Instead, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff for forcing unnecessary litigation on the defendants, and listed the matter for further hearing.

**Points of Law Settled**

- A plaintiff cannot obtain conditional withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC merely to preserve a future claim when the original suit lacks merit or when the plaintiff seeks to create artificial distinctions (such as raw material species) that do not align with the scope of the patent, which protects a process and not a particular raw material (Paras 14–19).

- In patent infringement suits, the cause of action arises from use of a similar or identical process, and minor variations in raw material do not negate infringement or create a separate future cause of action justifying conditional withdrawal (Paras 15–16).

- When a plaintiff's own expert report concludes the defendant's process is dissimilar and negates infringement, and the plaintiff persists with the suit before seeking withdrawal, the Court may refuse permission under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC and impose exemplary costs on the plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 4(b) CPC to compensate the defendant for being dragged into frivolous or avoidable litigation (Paras 17, 20).

- A plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate by first alleging infringement based on use of a particular raw material and later claiming no cause of action upon discovering a different raw material, while seeking to reserve rights for the same material in future (Para 16).

**Case Title:** Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.

**Order Date:** 17 February 2026

**Case Number:** CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:1333

**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi

**Name of Judge:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation

**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

======

Yashasvi Havelia Vs. Prabhtej Bhatia

Introduction: In a clear and practical ruling, the Delhi High Court has once again reinforced that trademarks which are registered but never used in the market cannot be allowed to block genuine businesses. The Court removed the mark ‘BANDOOK’ from the Register in Class 33 because the registered owner had not used it for more than five years. This judgment protects honest traders who want to use a mark and sends a strong signal that the trademark register must remain clean and reflect actual commercial use.

Factual Background: Yashasvi Havelia is actively engaged in the beverage business. The petitioner had already secured registration of the trademark ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 32 for beer and non-alcoholic drinks. When the petitioner decided to expand into alcoholic beverages (excluding beer) and applied for registration in Class 33, a search revealed an existing registration of the identical mark ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 33 in the name of Prabhtej Bhatia, trading as Raipur Bottling Company. The petitioner claimed that the respondent had never used the mark for any alcoholic beverages since its registration in 2018 and had no genuine intention to use it.

Procedural Background: The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the impugned registration on the ground of non-use. The petition was duly served on the respondent. Despite service, the respondent neither appeared nor filed any reply. The Registrar of Trade Marks was impleaded as Respondent No.2 and appeared through counsel but raised no opposition. The matter proceeded ex parte against Respondent No.1. After hearing the petitioner, the Court delivered its judgment on 22 January 2026, which contained a typographical error in the operative paragraph. This error was corrected by a subsequent order dated 10 February 2026 under Section 152 CPC, with the consent of the Registrar.

Reasoning and Decision of Court: Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the respondent’s complete silence and failure to file any reply meant that all allegations made in the petition stood admitted. The petitioner had clearly pleaded that the mark had not been used for over five years, supported by investigations showing no excise licences, no manufacturing approvals, no brand registrations, and no commercial activity under the mark. The Court held that the petitioner is a “person aggrieved” because it already holds registration of the identical mark in Class 32 and has a pending application in Class 33. The continued presence of the unused registration was blocking the petitioner’s legitimate business expansion.

Placing reliance on consistent precedents of the Delhi High Court, the judge ruled that once non-use is pleaded and not specifically denied, the allegation is deemed admitted and the mark becomes liable for removal under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act. The Court found that the respondent had no bona fide intention to use the mark and had merely squatted on the registration. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Trade Marks Registry was directed to remove the mark ‘BANDOOK’ under Registration No.3762319 in Class 33 from the Register and rectify the records to maintain its purity.

Point of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment settles that when a rectification petition pleads non-use of a registered trademark for the statutory period and the registered proprietor does not appear or specifically deny the allegation, the plea of non-use is deemed admitted and the mark is liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also reaffirms that a person who has registered or applied for the same or similar mark in a related class and whose business interests are affected is a “person aggrieved” entitled to maintain such a petition. The ruling further clarifies that mere registration without genuine commercial use does not entitle the proprietor to block others, and the Register must be kept free of dead or unused marks.

Case Title: Yashasvi Havelia Vs. Prabhtej Bhatia and Anr.

Date of Order: 22 January 2026
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:884
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon'ble Justice Jyoti Singh

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for the Article

Delhi High Court Removes Unused ‘BANDOOK’ Trademark for Non-Use
Squatting on Trademark Register No Longer Works: Delhi HC Ruling
Non-Use for Five Years Leads to Removal of ‘BANDOOK’ Mark
Genuine Business Interest Prevails: Rectification Petition Allowed

Suitable Tags

Trademark Rectification, Section 47 Trade Marks Act, Non-Use of Trademark, Delhi High Court Judgment, Person Aggrieved, Trademark Squatting, Bandook Trademark, IP Law India, Trademark Removal, Clean Register

Headnote of Article

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition and directed removal of the trademark ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 33 on the ground of non-use for more than five years. The Court held that the petitioner, being the registered proprietor of the identical mark in Class 32 and having a pending application in Class 33, is a person aggrieved. Since the respondent failed to contest the petition or deny the allegations of non-use, the averments were deemed admitted, leading to removal of the mark to maintain purity of the Register.

=====

Yashasvi Havelia, who is already the registered owner of the trademark BANDOOK for beer and non-alcoholic beverages, applied for the same mark for alcoholic beverages excluding beer and found an identical registration standing in the name of Prabhtej Bhatia. Claiming the respondent had never used the mark since registration and had no intention to use it, the petitioner filed a rectification petition for its removal. The respondent was duly served but neither appeared nor filed any reply, so the matter proceeded ex parte. The court held that the clear allegations of non-use stood fully admitted due to absence of any denial and that the petitioner was a person aggrieved because the unused mark was blocking its legitimate business expansion. Finding no genuine commercial use, the court allowed the petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the mark from the Register.

Law settled in the case

When a rectification petition pleads non-use of a registered trademark and the registered proprietor fails to appear or specifically deny the allegation, the plea of non-use is deemed admitted and the mark is liable to be removed.

Case Title: Yashasvi Havelia Vs. Prabhtej Bhatia:22.01.2026:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025:2026:DHC:884: Hon'ble Justice Jyoti Singh

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

====

IP.ADJUTOR

Monday, February 23, 2026

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sanjeev Builders

Flipkart India Vs Marc Enterprises

Sampath Kumar Vs Ayyakanu

Sauss Home Products Vs Reckitt Benckiser

Saturday, February 21, 2026

Gillette Safety Razor Company Vs. Anglo-American Trading Company Ltd.

Friday, February 20, 2026

Green Energy Resources Vs Union of India

Mehul Jain Vs The Registrar of Trademark

Victoria Cross India Pvt Ltd Vs Victrorinox Ag

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs Dhan Singh

Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Coldsmiths Retail Services Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks

Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh

Yashasvi Havelia Vs. Prabhtej Bhatia

Blog Archive

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

My Blog List

My other Blogging Links

About Me

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog

Total Pageviews

Report Abuse