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
Waycool Food Products Private LimitedvsCheedalla Gopinath, Aditya Rice Enterprises, Sree KVR Industries
Waycool Food Products Private Limited filed a civil suit against several defendants alleging passing off, copyright infringement, and misuse of its distinctive trade dress and logo in the packed rice market. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged violations. Ultimately, both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on February 17, 2024, leading to the court decreeing the suit while noting that the plaintiff had waived the claim for monetary damages.
Kewal Krishan KumarvsRudi Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Kewal Krishan Kumar against the registration of the trademark 'Shiv Shakti' by Rudi Roller Flour Mills. The court found that despite some phonetic similarity, the composite nature of the respondent's mark—including the device of Trishul and Damru—created a sufficient visual and phonetic difference from the petitioner's 'Shakti Bhog'. Furthermore, the court ruled that Section 12(3) (concurrent user provision) was not applicable because the trademarks were not identical.
Flipkart Internet Private LimitedvsAkash Aggarwal & Anr.
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a dispute over e-commerce platform features, specifically Flipkart's 'latching on' function. The plaintiff, V Tradition, alleged that this feature allowed unauthorized sellers to piggyback on their brand reputation and product listings, constituting passing off. While the initial order strongly restricted the use of this feature, the court ultimately stayed those restrictive observations pending further examination. This decision highlights the tension between protecting IP goodwill in e-commerce and maintaining platform functionality.
Amritsar Rice LandvsSumit Bansal & Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute concerning rice products, the Delhi High Court issued a critical interim order regarding seized inventory. Recognizing that rice is a perishable commodity, the court permitted the Defendants to dispose of the substantial stock (30,000-35,000 kgs) held under local commissioner's supervision. This relief was contingent upon the Defendants depositing Rs. 7,50,000/- with the court and strictly adhering to a complete cessation of further manufacture or sale under the disputed brands.
Madhu Food ProductsvsSurya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Madhu Food Products, upholding the Commercial Court's initial order favoring Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning food products under the marks 'HUNK' and 'HUNT'. The court found prima facie evidence that the appellant copied the respondent's distinctive trade dress and packaging, concluding that the use of 'HUNT' was intended to take advantage of the respondent's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting brand identity through both trademark registration and distinct visual presentation.
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.