Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and another filed a trademark infringement suit against Kartar Industries and its proprietor Seema Sood for unauthorized use of the 'HERO' marks on spare parts and packaging, seeking permanent injunction, passing off, dilution, and ancillary reliefs. On September 11, 2025, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in infringing products. During the local commissioner's search of the defendant's premises, infringing goods were found, but the defendants manhandled, abused, and threatened the commissioner and plaintiffs' counsel, and instructed employees to burn the counterfeit materials, leading to a contempt application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Notices were issued on October 17 and November 27, 2025, where defendants initially sought mediation, then objected to the commissioner's report but withdrew objections, tendered an unconditional apology, and agreed to cease infringement. The court reasoned that a local commissioner is a court officer whose execution cannot be interfered with, and while the apology mitigated punishment, the egregious conduct warranted penalty beyond mere apology, citing the need for hefty consequences for such contempt. For the suit, relying on Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7128), the court noted that without led evidence, damages are notional and based on broad assessment of record, including investigation costs, suit filing, commissioner fees, and contempt proceedings. The court disposed of the contempt by directing defendants to donate ₹2,50,000 to HelpAge India within eight weeks, decreed the suit with permanent injunction per prayer clauses (a) to (e), bound defendants to their undertaking against future infringement, and awarded ₹2,50,000 in costs and damages to plaintiffs.
- In cases of wilful disobedience and interference with court-appointed local commissioner's execution, including threats and evidence destruction, mere unconditional apology does not absolve contempt; punishment is warranted, though mitigated by the apology and undertaking to cease infringement, with the court imposing a donation as penalty [Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Kartar Industries through its Proprietor Seema Sood, Para 7-8].
- A local commissioner is an officer of the court, and defendants cannot interfere with or threaten them during commission execution without facing consequences [Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Kartar Industries through its Proprietor Seema Sood, Para 7].
- In infringement suits where no evidence is led, damages are notional, granted on a reasonable and fair basis through broad assessment of the record, including costs of investigation, suit filing, local commissioner fees, and contempt proceedings [Strix Ltd. v. Maharaja Appliances Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7128, as referenced in Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Kartar Industries through its Proprietor Seema Sood, Para 15-16].
Case Title: Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kartar Industries Order Date: December 8, 2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 971/2025, I.A. 26291/2025, I.A. 22461/2025 & I.A. 22462/2025 Neutral Citation: Not provided Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[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]
