Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Wazahat Choudhary

In the world of skincare, brand trust is everything—and counterfeit products don't just steal sales, they steal reputation. When a company discovers someone riding on its hard-earned goodwill, waiting months for a court date can mean the difference between protecting a brand and watching it erode. This case from the Delhi High Court is a masterclass in how urgency can bend procedural rules in favor of a brand under attack.

Pureplay Skin Sciences (India) Pvt. Ltd, a skincare company, found itself in a trademark infringement battle against Mr. Wazahat Choudhary. The dispute centered on skincare products, where Pureplay alleged that the defendant was dealing in counterfeit or infringing goods that piggybacked on its established brand identity. Faced with what it described as an urgent threat to its intellectual property, Pureplay approached the Delhi High Court seeking swift interim relief rather than waiting for the slow grind of ordinary litigation timelines.

Pureplay's argument was rooted in urgency. The brand contended that counterfeit products in the market were actively damaging its reputation and goodwill, and that any delay would only deepen the harm. To support its case, Pureplay sought leave to file additional documents and pushed for an exemption from the mandatory pre-litigation mediation requirement, arguing that mediation would only give the infringer more time to continue the alleged wrongdoing. On the other side, the procedural framework of the Commercial Courts Act typically requires parties to attempt mediation before full-blown litigation, and standard rules govern how summons are served and how discovery unfolds. The legal friction, therefore, was between Pureplay's plea for speed and the default procedural safeguards designed to give every party a fair shot at responding.

The Delhi High Court sided with Pureplay on the urgency front. The court granted leave to file additional documents, recognizing that the plaintiff needed room to present its full evidentiary picture. More significantly, the court exempted Pureplay from the mandatory pre-litigation mediation, accepting that the circumstances justified skipping this step. The court also allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to physically inspect the defendant's premises—a powerful tool that enables courts to gather firsthand evidence of suspected counterfeit stock. Alongside this, the court granted exemptions from advance service requirements and certain discovery procedures, effectively clearing the path for swift action. The reasoning rested on the court's inherent discretion under procedural laws like the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act to grant interim reliefs when the protection of intellectual property rights demands immediate intervention.

For founders and IP professionals, the lesson is clear: when counterfeit activity threatens your brand, don't wait for the standard litigation calendar to catch up. Build a compelling record of urgency from day one—document the scale of infringement, the speed at which counterfeit goods are moving, and the reputational damage already underway. Courts have the discretion to waive mediation, allow Local Commissioner inspections, and relax procedural timelines when you can demonstrate that delay itself is the enemy. The faster you move with credible evidence, the faster the court can move with you.