Facts of the Case
The case involves a dispute between Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Limited (plaintiffs) and Really Agritech Pvt Ltd. and another (defendants) over alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs, registered proprietors of the marks "Ralli," "Ralli Engine," "Ralli Sprayer," and "Ralli Agricultural Machines" under classes 7 and 8, claimed that the defendants’ use of a deceptively similar mark "Really" (device) in class 7 infringed their rights. The plaintiffs alleged they became aware of the defendants’ use of the "Really" mark in May 2024, prompting them to file a suit seeking urgent interim reliefs, including an injunction, without pursuing pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The defendants contested this, arguing that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the "Really" mark as early as December 2018 (via an exhibition) and March 2022 (via WhatsApp messages), accusing them of suppressing material facts to bypass mediation.
Procedural Background in Brief
The plaintiffs filed the suit (IP-COM/31/2024) in the High Court at Calcutta, Original Side, and obtained dispensation from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A on 30 September 2024, citing the need for urgent relief. The defendants filed applications (GA-COM/2/2024 and GA-COM/3/2024) seeking revocation of this dispensation and rejection of the plaint, arguing misrepresentation by the plaintiffs. The court heard arguments from both sides, with the plaintiffs defending their urgency claim and the defendants relying on evidence of prior knowledge to challenge it.
Judgments Referred in Case with Complete Citation and Context:Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 Context: Emphasized that courts must scrutinize claims of urgency under Section 12A to prevent circumvention of mandatory mediation, balancing plaintiffs’ rights with statutory intent. Patil Automation (P) Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 Context: Established Section 12A as mandatory, requiring rejection of suits filed without mediation unless urgent relief is genuinely contemplated. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. vs. Smart Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 7276 Context: Held that urgency must be pleaded with supporting evidence, free of deception or suppression. S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 166 Context: Stressed that suppression of material facts disqualifies a litigant from relief, as it amounts to deceiving the court. Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 100 Context: Reinforced that litigants must approach courts with clean hands, disclosing all material facts. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 Context: Established that fraud unravels all, allowing courts to examine suppressed facts to detect fraud. Chemco Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chemco Plast, (2024) SCC OnLine Bom 1607 Context: Clarified that urgency must be assessed holistically, not solely based on time gaps. Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Pioneer Trading Corporation & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9825 Context: Distinguished by the court; held that non-disclosure of trivial facts does not equate to material suppression.
Reasoning of the Court:
Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur held that Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is genuinely required, as per Patil Automation. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claim of discovering the "Really" mark in May 2024 was false, given evidence of their participation in the 2018 Kisan Mela exhibition (where rival goods were displayed) and WhatsApp messages from 2022 showing employee awareness of the defendants’ products. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that employee knowledge was not attributable to them, deeming it unsubstantiated. It concluded that the plaintiffs suppressed material facts to fabricate urgency and bypass mediation, violating the principle of approaching the court with clean hands (S.J.S. Business Enterprises). While acknowledging that intellectual property suits often require urgent relief, the court emphasized that this does not exempt compliance with Section 12A when facts are misrepresented (Yamini Manohar). The five-month delay between alleged knowledge and filing was not decisive, but the suppression of prior knowledge was, leading to a finding of fraud on the court.
Decision:
The court revoked the dispensation granted on 30 September 2024, rejected the plaint in IP-COM/31/2024, vacated all interim orders, and allowed the defendants’ applications (GA-COM/2/2024 and GA-COM/3/2024). The plaintiffs’ suit and application for interim relief (GA-COM/1/2024) were dismissed. A subsequent request for a stay was denied.
Case Title: Unique Entrepreneurs and Finance Limited vs. Really Agritech Pvt Ltd. and Anr
Date of Order: 20 March 2025
Case Number: IP-COM/31/2024;
Name of Court: High Court at Calcutta,
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
