M/S Mithaas Sweets And Restaurant Private Limited v. M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar

Trademark disputes are supposed to protect brands, but what happens when the fight over a name gets stuck not on the merits of infringement, but on which courtroom should hear it? The case of Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant versus Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar is a striking example of how procedural and jurisdictional questions can overshadow the core IP conflict, leaving founders and businesses in legal limbo while courts untangle years of procedural history.

Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant, the petitioner, found itself before the Delhi High Court challenging an order passed by a District Judge. That lower court order had permitted the respondent, M/S Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar, to file a fresh suit concerning trademark infringement. The underlying conflict traces back to a suit originally filed in 2016—a case that, according to the petitioner, should have been governed by the Commercial Courts Act but was instead heard by an ordinary Civil Court. As the matter moved upward, applications seeking condonation of delay were initially granted, but the deeper question of jurisdiction remained unresolved.

Mithaas Sweets and Restaurant argued that the District Judge's decision to allow a fresh suit was legally flawed, particularly given the long history of the 2016 proceedings and the question of whether those proceedings should have been handled under the Commercial Courts framework from the outset. The petitioner effectively questioned the procedural fairness and correctness of the lower court's ruling. On the other side, the respondent, Lakhi Ram Deepak Kumar, had secured the right to file a fresh suit, suggesting that the earlier proceedings were insufficient or improperly conducted. The legal friction centered not on whether trademark infringement occurred, but on whether the right forum had been used—and whether allowing a new suit was justified given the passage of time and the statutory framework governing commercial disputes.

The Delhi High Court did not deliver a final ruling on the merits of the jurisdictional dispute. Instead, the court acknowledged that the question of why the 2016 suit was decided by a Civil Court rather than under the Commercial Courts Act required deeper examination. The court directed both parties to file detailed notes of contentions, scheduling further proceedings for August 19, 2025. The outcome was mixed: while the delay condonation applications were granted, allowing the matter to proceed, the substantive jurisdictional question was deferred, leaving both sides awaiting a definitive resolution.

For founders and IP professionals, this case is a powerful reminder that jurisdiction is not a mere technicality—it can dictate the trajectory of an entire trademark dispute. When filing or defending IP suits, businesses must carefully consider whether their matter falls under specialized commercial court frameworks, as missteps in forum selection can create years of procedural uncertainty. Before challenging lower court orders, be prepared for courts to demand thorough examination of statutory applicability and underlying facts, which can significantly delay resolution. Investing in early jurisdictional clarity and proper forum selection can save businesses from protracted battles where the real IP questions never even get addressed.