Short Summary
The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Crocodile International Pte. Ltd against La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. The court condoned the plaintiff's delay in filing its replication and granted an extension for filing a rejoinder, provided the plaintiff deposits costs. Furthermore, the court set out a clear roadmap for the case management, directing both parties to file documents, affidavits of admission/denial, and joint document schedules before proceeding to trial.
Detailed Summary
of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Crocodile International Pte. Ltd. vs La Chemise Lacoste & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals LtdvsMankind Pharma Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement combined with passing off. The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that since both parties had offices in Delhi, the Bombay High Court lacked competence to hear the common law claim. The court rejected this submission, affirmed its jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and made the Clause XIV Petition absolute.
Ram Pal ChauhanvsM/S County Apparels And Others
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ram Pal Chauhan, proprietor of 'M/s. Classic Apparels,' who sued for passing off against M/S County Apparels and others regarding the trademark 'DEVIN.' The court found that the Plaintiff had established prior use and goodwill associated with the mark before the Defendants began using it to pass off their goods as those of the Plaintiff. Crucially, the judgment affirmed that a right of action for passing off exists even if the trade mark is unregistered, citing Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
SAP SEvsERP TRAINING INDIA & ORS.
SAP SE successfully secured a comprehensive interim injunction against ERP Training India and associated parties in the Delhi High Court. The court found prima facie evidence of trademark and copyright infringement related to unauthorized online SAP training courses. Consequently, the defendants were ordered to immediately deactivate websites, domains, email addresses, block specific IP access points, and freeze bank accounts linked to the infringing activities.
Delhivery Private LimitedvsTreasure Vase Ventures Private Limited
Delhivery Private Limited successfully secured an ad-interim injunction against Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of the deceptively similar mark 'DELIVERE' by the defendant, which closely resembles Delhivery's registered trademark 'DELHIVERY'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from using the infringing mark across its goods and services until further proceedings.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.vsM/S Electro International & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited and its affiliates against a defendant operating the domain www.tatacliqsmart.com. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was infringing on their registered trademark 'TATA' and associated e-commerce brand, tatacliq.com, by using a similar name to sell products, including those belonging to the Tata Group. The court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction, noting the apparent link between the defendant's activities and the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
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.