The respondent/plaintiff filed a trademark infringement suit against the petitioner/defendant alleging infringement of his registered trademark “Shri Ankit” by the defendant's use of “Ankit” since 1988 for pipes and allied products, with the suit valued at Rs.55,600/-.
The defendant sought transfer of the suit to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, contending it was a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) and the valuation was arbitrary as the trademark's commercial value exceeded the Rs.3 lakh specified value threshold, but the trial court rejected the application holding that the plaintiff's valuation below Rs.3 lakh precluded Commercial Court jurisdiction.
Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present miscellaneous petition, arguing that IPR disputes are inherently commercial and courts must independently assess true value.
The High Court upheld the trial court's order, reasoning that a dispute qualifies as commercial only if the specified value is at least Rs.3 lakh as per Section 2(1)(i), the plaintiff's valuation governed, the Vishal Pipes Limited precedent was overruled, and determination of prior user in this trademark dispute did not mandate commercial classification absent the threshold value, dismissing the petition.
Law Point:
Trademark infringement disputes, though falling under the definition of "commercial dispute" in Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, are triable by Commercial Courts only if the "specified value" of the suit is not less than Rs.3 lakh as mandated by Section 2(1)(i); suits valued below this threshold remain with regular civil courts, and plaintiff's valuation is binding unless proven arbitrary in a manner warranting revaluation (Paras 9-14).
The overruling of Vishal Pipes Limited v. Bhavya Pipe Industry (2022 SCC OnLine Del 1730) by Pankaj Ravjibhai Patel v. SSS Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. (2023 SCC Delhi 7013) reinforces that low-valued IPR suits need not be automatically transferred or revalued for Commercial Court jurisdiction (Para 12).
Case Title: Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing Through Power of Attorney Ms Sonam Geda Vs . Mohan Singh Panwar: 11.12.2025: Misc. Petition No. 4539 of 2025: 2025:MPHC-IND:36415: Madhya Pradesh HC:Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Awasthi
[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]
