Short Summary
The court heard arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the suit. The plaintif argued that since the relief was an injunction valued at Rs. 130/-, it should be transferred to the District Judge (Central) as the commercial court lacked minimum pecuniary jurisdiction. However, the court found that the dispute related to a trademark ('REMSON PRIME') and thus fell under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Detailed Summary
When a trademark owner walks into court asking for an injunction valued at a mere Rs. 130, the natural instinct is to assume the case is too small to matter. But what happens when that tiny valuation collides with the powerful machinery of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? This is precisely the friction at the heart of a recent dispute over the mark 'REMSON PRIME' — a case that turns a seemingly trivial pecuniary value into a serious jurisdictional puzzle for every founder protecting intangible IP.
The dispute centers on the trademark 'REMSON PRIME', an intellectual property right that the plaintiff sought to defend through court intervention. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunction, declaring the relief's value at Rs. 130/-. This nominal valuation became the foundation of the plaintiff's jurisdictional argument: since the commercial court handling the matter did not meet the minimum pecuniary threshold required for such a low-value claim, the plaintiff contended that the suit should be transferred to the District Judge (Central). The stage was set for a clash between the technical valuation of relief and the substantive nature of the dispute itself.
The plaintiff argued the case from a purely pecuniary standpoint. By valuing the injunction at Rs. 130/-, the plaintiff asserted that the commercial court lacked the minimum pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the matter, and therefore the suit must be transferred to the District Judge (Central). On the other side, the court had to consider the nature of the underlying right being protected. The dispute was not about a small commercial transaction — it was about a trademark, an intangible intellectual property asset. The legal friction emerged between the low declared value of the relief and the commercial character of an IP rights dispute, raising the question of whether pecuniary value alone should dictate the forum.
The court examined the substance of the dispute and recognized that the matter involved a trademark — 'REMSON PRIME' — which squarely fell within the scope of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found that the dispute, by its very nature as a trademark matter, qualified as a commercial dispute under the Act. While the matter remained pending for final resolution, the court's reasoning made clear that the character of the IP right at stake carries significant weight in determining the appropriate forum, and cannot be overridden simply by a low declared pecuniary value.
For founders and IP professionals, this case delivers a sharp reminder: a suit involving an intangible intellectual property right such as a trademark must satisfy two distinct criteria under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — it must qualify as a 'commercial dispute', and it must carry a properly determined 'specified value'. Declaring an artificially low value to escape a particular forum is a risky strategy that may not survive judicial scrutiny. When protecting your brand, ensure that both the commercial nature of the dispute and the valuation of relief are accurately and strategically presented from the outset.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi District Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Lalit Babbar & anr. vs Remson Prime Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others 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.