Anurag Sanghi v. M/S Knitpro International

For any founder who has ever watched a competitor copy their product, the instinct is to sue—and sue hard. But what happens when the legal system forces you to launch not one, but three separate lawsuits over the very same product? A 2019 Delhi High Court decision involving rival knitting needles offers a masterclass in why courts sometimes refuse to let IP fights be fragmented, and why consolidation can be a founder's most powerful procedural weapon.

The dispute pitted Anurag Sanghi and an associated party against M/S Knitpro International, a company dealing in knitting needles. Sanghi found himself in a familiar but painful position: a competitor appeared to be selling or offering for sale knitting needles that allegedly copied his protected designs, trade dress, and creative work. To protect his rights, Sanghi filed three distinct intellectual property suits against Knitpro International. The first, CS 867/2018, was a design infringement suit. The second, TM No.178/2017, was a passing off action. The third, TM No.179/2017, was a copyright infringement suit. Although each suit invoked a different branch of IP law, all three pointed at the same underlying grievance: the alleged sale of rival knitting needles that mirrored Sanghi's protected product.

Sanghi's argument was straightforward and practical. He contended that because all three suits arose from the same set of facts—the sale or offer for sale of the rival knitting needles—they shared common questions of law and fact. Trying them separately, he argued, would lead to contradictory findings, duplicate evidence, and a waste of judicial time and resources. He sought consolidation of the three proceedings into a single trial. The respondent, Knitpro International, faced the prospect of defending the same product across three parallel battlegrounds. The legal friction centered on a key procedural question: when multiple IP statutes are invoked over a single product and a single set of commercial acts, should the courts treat them as one unified dispute or as three independent fights?

The Delhi High Court sided with the logic of judicial efficiency. Relying on precedents including the ruling in Carlsberg Breweries A/S, the Court held that since the causes of action in all three suits were rooted in the same facts—namely, the sale or offer for sale of the rival knitting needles—the matters had to be tried jointly. The Court reasoned that allowing the suits to proceed separately would result in multiplicity of proceedings, an outcome the judiciary is duty-bound to prevent. The outcome was recorded as mixed, reflecting that while consolidation was granted to streamline the dispute, the underlying claims themselves remained to be adjudicated on their merits in the unified proceeding.

For founders and IP professionals, the lesson is procedural but profound: when a single infringing product triggers violations across multiple IP regimes—design, copyright, and passing off—file strategically with consolidation in mind. Plead the common factual foundation clearly, cite precedents like Carlsberg Breweries, and request joint trial from the outset. Fighting on three fronts simultaneously drains capital, duplicates evidence, and risks inconsistent rulings. A unified suit, by contrast, forces the court to see the full picture of how a competitor's product infringes across every layer of IP protection, delivering a cleaner, faster, and more decisive resolution.