New India Biri Factory v. Mohd Saleem & Ors.

In the world of consumer brands, your trademark is your identity and your artistic work is your signature. But what happens when a competitor decides to clone both? Waiting for a slow, drawn-out legal battle can mean watching counterfeit goods flood the market while your hard-earned reputation takes the hit. This case from the Delhi High Court shows exactly how a determined brand owner can move fast—fast enough to get a court-appointed search team through the infringer's doors before the infringer even knows a lawsuit has been filed.

New India Biri Factory, the Plaintiff, came to court holding two powerful pieces of intellectual property: registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works. These are the visual and brand elements that distinguish a legitimate product from a lookalike on the crowded shelves. The Defendants, led by Mohd Saleem and others, were alleged to be using these very same trademarks and artistic works without authorization—essentially riding on the Plaintiff's brand equity to sell their own goods. The dispute escalated to the point where the Plaintiff needed urgent judicial intervention to stop the alleged infringement in its tracks.

The Plaintiff's argument was straightforward but urgent: the Defendants were infringing their registered trademarks and copyrighted artistic works, and every day the infringement continued meant more damage to the brand. To stop the bleeding, the Plaintiff asked the court to do something dramatic—appoint Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendants' premises. The catch? The Defendants had not yet been formally served with the lawsuit. This is what makes the request legally contentious: courts are generally cautious about granting relief against a party who hasn't had a chance to respond. The legal friction, therefore, lay in balancing the Plaintiff's urgent need for evidence preservation against the Defendants' right to be heard.

The Delhi High Court sided with urgency. On 24 August 2022, the court issued a series of orders that tilted the playing field firmly in the Plaintiff's favor. First, it dispensed with the requirement of pre-institution mediation, recognizing that this was not a case where negotiation could wait. Second, it granted the Plaintiff leave to file additional documents, giving them flexibility to strengthen their evidentiary record. Most critically, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction—meaning relief was granted without hearing the Defendants—and authorized the Plaintiff to proceed with a search and seizure operation through Local Commissioners at the Defendants' premises. This combination of procedural orders effectively allowed the Plaintiff to act decisively, securing evidence and disrupting the alleged infringement before the Defendants could mount a defense.

For founders and IP professionals, this case is a master