Kbm Foods Private Limited v. Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company

CS(COMM) 1141/2025

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Kbm Foods Private Limited against Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed the appointment and execution of a Local Commissioner to seize goods bearing allegedly infringing marks, thereby providing immediate interim relief to the plaintiff while the main suit proceeds.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 1141/2025
Decision Date
17 October 2025

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Kbm Foods Private Limited vs Ajay Yadav Trading As Sourav Masala Company is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 806/2022

B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive MarketingvsGuthy-Renker Llc

The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by B.K. Sharma Trading As M/s Proactive Marketing seeking an expeditious decision on its trademark registration application for 'AYU-HINA'. The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2003, had exceeded the statutory period of 18 months for disposal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Registrar of Trademarks to resolve the pending registration within a strict timeframe of three months.

patentC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2024

Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd.vsKhatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.

patentCM(M)-IPD 3/2023

Khilender Gupta Trading As M/S Bobby EnterprisesvsRakesh Kumar Trading As M/S Sai Birbal Das Foods

The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Khilender Gupta (the defendant in the original suit) challenging a lower court's refusal to permit amendments to their written statement. The core issue was whether changing the claimed date of trademark use constituted an impermissible 'U-turn.' The Court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to claim user from any date, and the amendment merely reflected newly discovered material, it was correctional in nature and should be allowed in the interest of justice.

patentWP(IPD) No. 12 of 2025

Edward Charles Troppi SmythevsThe Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India

The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.

patentCS(COMM) 110/2024 I.A. 2742/2024-2748/2024

Hero Investcorp Private Limited And Anr.vsDiamond Autos

In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of 'HERO' trademarks, Hero Investcorp Private Limited sought various interim reliefs against Diamond Autos. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service due to urgency. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises in Ludhiana to verify the alleged counterfeit products, setting the stage for further proceedings on the injunction application.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call