M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors.

CS(COMM) 555/2016

This is an order in CS(COMM) 555/2016 before the Delhi High Court, where the Plaintiff, M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permission to file a rectification petition concerning the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09, by framing an issue of invalidity of the said registration. The Court directed issuance of notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.11.2026, the date already fixed.

Jurisdiction
India
Court / Office
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 555/2016
Judge(s)
Jyoti Singh

Detailed Summary

The matter arises out of CS(COMM) 555/2016 pending before the Delhi High Court, with M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. as the Plaintiff and M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors. as the Defendants. The Plaintiff filed an interlocutory application, I.A. 24115/2026, under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking permission to file a rectification petition in respect of the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09. The Plaintiff sought this permission by requesting the Court to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the said trademark registration. The Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. The Defendants were not represented at the hearing. The Court, presided over by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh, considered the application and directed that notice be issued to the Defendants through all permissible modes. The matter was made returnable on 26.11.2026, which was noted as the date already fixed. The order was digitally signed by Justice Jyoti Singh on September 3, 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 M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS (Comm) No. 404/2021

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.

trademarkCM(M)-IPD 56/2026

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.

trademarkMA 3033/2026 in CA 5174/2025

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.

trademarkCS(COMM) 280/2026

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.

trademarkWP(IPD) No. 37 of 2026

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.

trademarkC.S(COMM DIV) No. 276 of 2025

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.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our TM 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 trademark matter?

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

Get a Strategy Call