Short Summary
The Petitioner, a professional photographer and equal designated partner in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with Respondent No.1, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking urgent interim measures of protection. The disputes concerned alleged unauthorized use of the brand 'The Autofocus' (conceived by the Petitioner), control over digital assets and social media accounts, denial of access to the LLP's premises, and unilateral transfer of approximately Rs.53.26 lakhs from the LLP's bank account to Respondent No.1's personal account. The Delhi High Court, upon prima facie review of the LLP Agreement, found that while Clause 13 permitted independent business activity subject to prior intimation, Clause 14 expressly prohibited a designated partner from undertaking any business directly competing with the LLP's objectives. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and granted limited interim relief restraining Respondent No.1 from transferring or alienating the LLP's assets, digital data, or retaining exclusive control over the LLP's digital accounts.
Detailed Summary
The Petitioner, Kunal Chintamani Kelkar, is a professional photographer, cinematographer, and creative professional who commenced his career in 2012. He conceived, developed, and promoted the professional identity and brand 'The Autofocus' through various digital platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and a domain name registered on 02.01.2016. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1, Kanika Sood, are equal designated partners of a Limited Liability Partnership (Respondent No.2), governed by an LLP Agreement dated 07.11.2024. Clause 41 of the LLP Agreement provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Petitioner alleged that disputes arose concerning access to the LLP's premises, management of the business, and control over assets, with the Petitioner being denied access to the premises where his professional equipment, digital storage, and business materials remained. It was further alleged that Respondent No.1 had earlier filed a trademark application for 'The Autofocus' in her individual name in 2017, which was refused on 24.06.2020 for lack of supporting material. During the pendency of the disputes, the Petitioner alleged that Respondent No.1 created the domain name 'theautofocus.in' and an associated website through Himseed Foundation, used 'The Autofocus' identity, and linked the website with existing creative content and social media profiles. On 10.07.2026, access to Facebook pages operated under 'The Autofocus' and 'Kunal Kelkar' was allegedly removed, after which Respondent No.1 purportedly used the disputed domain and digital platforms containing the Petitioner's photographs and creative work. The Petitioner also alleged that Respondent No.1 transferred Rs.30.69 lakhs on 19.07.2026 and Rs.22.57 lakhs on 16.08.2026 from the LLP bank account to her personal account, aggregating to Rs.53.26 lakhs, without his consent. Pre-litigation mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, initiated on 29.05.2026, failed on 30.07.2026. The Petitioner sought interim protection pending invocation of arbitration, including preservation of the 'The Autofocus' brand and goodwill, restraint against use of the disputed domain, and protection of the LLP's intellectual property.
The Court noted that the Petitioner has a direct, contractual, and beneficial interest in the preservation of the LLP's business and assets, and was seeking limited interim protection against dissipation or misuse pending adjudication of the inter se disputes. Upon a prima facie perusal of the LLP Agreement, the Court deduced that Clause 13 permits a partner to continue an existing business or start a new independent business, provided the LLP is informed beforehand and the LLP's name is not used. However, Clause 13 is expressly subject to Clause 14, which specifically prohibits a Designated Partner from undertaking a business activity that is 'directly competing with the objectives of the LLP,' and further provides that profits or monetary benefits from any such competing activity must be transferred to the LLP. The Court held that the terms of the agreement allow Respondent No.1 to conduct an independent business, but that permission is subject to prior intimation and does not authorize Respondent No.1 to use the LLP's name. Multiple clauses separately prohibit or regulate the use of the LLP's information and assets, with the clear intention to prevent misuse of the LLP's data and assets. The Court issued notice to the Respondents through all permissible modes, including electronic means and dasti, directing that the reply be filed within four weeks and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Till the next date of hearing on 14.10.2026, Respondent No.1 was restrained from transferring or alienating the assets, the LLP's digital data, retaining exclusive control over the LLP's digital accounts, or writing to the customers of the LLP.
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 Kunal Chintamani Kelkar vs Kanika Sood & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd.vsOm Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
Ms Pas AgrovsM/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private LimitedvsInox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private LimitedvsAlaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
Healthium Medtech Limited (earlier Healthium Medtech Private Limited)vsThe Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai
Healthium Medtech Limited filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Registrar of Trade Marks to expeditiously dispose of Opposition No. 1027536 filed by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals against Healthium's trademark application No. 4270882 for the 'Healthium' device mark in Classes 05 and 10. The petitioner complained that despite evidence having been adduced, the opposition proceedings remained pending without a final hearing. The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Registrar to hear both parties and dispose of the opposition on merits within four weeks.
CavinKare Private LimitedvsMaha Aqua, Trading As Mahalakshmi Aqua
CavinKare Private Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Maha Aqua (trading as Mahalakshmi Aqua) seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the mark 'MAA' or any deceptively similar mark in respect of goods in Class 32. The plaintiff relies on its registered trademarks 'MAA' under Nos. 1109946 and 6453733. The Court, after issues were framed and affidavits of admission/denial filed, approved a Joint Case Management Schedule suggested by both parties and set timelines for completion of evidence and oral arguments.
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.