Short Summary
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.
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
Asian Paints LimitedvsRainbow Colours Co. and others
Asian Paints Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Rainbow Colours Co. and others alleging infringement of its distinctive trademarks and trade dress related to wall primers. The Bombay High Court granted leave under the Letters Patent Act and passed an order granting an interim injunction.
M/S Landmark Crafts Private LimitedvsRomil Gupta Proprietor Of M/S Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a defendant's application to take certain affidavits on record in a trademark infringement suit. The court ultimately allowed the application, accepting the additional documents despite procedural delays. This decision emphasizes judicial flexibility and the importance of considering the context of litigation history when determining admissibility of evidence.
M/s. Wockhardt LimitedvsApex Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging a trademark registration refusal. The appellant argued that the lower court's review was improperly exercised as an appeal, citing strict limitations on review jurisdiction. However, the Court found that the original decision failed to address key submissions made by the respondent regarding prior use and lack of evidence from the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that these omissions constituted 'errors apparent on the face of the record,' allowing the review order to stand.
Dr Ashim Kumar BiswasvsA To Z Pharmaceuticals And Laboratory & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Ashim Kumar Biswas against A To Z Pharmaceuticals for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's product was an exact copy of the plaintiff's Ayurvedic medicine, using a deceptively similar mark ('DR. BISWASH') while also naming the plaintiff as the manufacturer. Given the clear prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation, the court restrained the defendants from continuing the infringing activities until further hearing.
M/s.Digital Securities Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar of Trademarks & M/s.Kwality Ice Creams
The Madras High Court addressed an appeal challenging an order that allowed the review of a trademark registration application previously treated as abandoned for want of prosecution. The court found that while the original abandonment was based on discretion, the subsequent procedural history and lack of substantive adjudication warranted intervention. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the application after granting both the appellant and respondent a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
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.