Arctic Invent - Update Case

Case Lawsuit Title *

Case / Trial ID Number

Jurisdiction Code *

Category *

Filing Date

Decision Verdict Date

Court / Tribunal

Bench / Panel Judges

Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)

Respondent / Defendant

Dispute Summary

Outcome / Ruling

Verdict Document PDF URL

Full text judgment

[Cites
5
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Eastman Auto And Power Limited vs M/S Hind Enterprises & Anr on 3 July, 2026
Author:
Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench:
Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~7
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 684/2026
                                    EASTMAN AUTO AND POWER LIMITED        .....Plaintiff
                                                  Through: Mr. Gaurav H. Sethi, Mr. Rahul
                                                             Kapoor and Mr. Rahul Pawar,
                                                             Advocates.
                                                  versus
                                    M/S HIND ENTERPRISES & ANR.           .....Defendants
                                                  Through:
                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
                                                  ORDER
%                       03.07.2026

I.A. 16604/2026 (exemption)
                          I.A. 16603/2026 (exemption)
                                    Exemptions granted, subject to just exceptions.
                                    Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
                                    The applications stand disposed-of.
I.A. 16602/2026 (exemption from pre-litigation mediation)
2.        By way of the present application filed under
section 12A
of
                                    Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with
section 151
of the Code of
                                    Civil Procedure 1908 ('
CPC
'), the plaintiff seeks exemption from
                                    attempting pre-litigation mediation.
3.        Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, and
                                    in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar vs.
                                    T.K.D. Keerthi
1 and of a Division Bench of this court in Chandra
1
(2024) 5 SCC 815
CS(COMM) 684/2026                                                                                Page 1 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 20:40:22
Kishore Chaurasia vs. R A Perfumery Works (P) Ltd.2
, the plaintiff is
                                    exempted from attempting pre-litigation mediation.
4.        The application stands disposed-of.
CS(COMM) 684/2026
5.        By way of the present plaint, the plaintiff inter-alia seeks a decree of
                                    permanent              injunction            restraining            the        defendants       from
                                    infringing/passing off the plaintiff's trademark, wordmark and device

mark "EASTMAN" and its variations.
6.        Upon a prima-facie conspectus of the matter, let the plaint be registered
                                    as a suit.
7.        Issue summons on the suit.
8.        Upon the plaintiff taking requisite steps within 10 days, let summons
                                    be sent to the defendants by all permissible modes, returnable for the
                                    next date before the learned Joint Registrar.
9.        Let the summons indicate that the defendants are required to file written
                                    statement to the plaint within 30 days from the date of receipt of
                                    summons, alongwith affidavit of admission/denial of the documents
                                    filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff may file replication to the written
                                    statement within 30 days thereafter, alongwith affidavit of
                                    admission/denial of the documents filed by defendants.
10.       List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings, for
                                    admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 24th
                                    September 2026.
11.       List before court thereafter.
2
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529
CS(COMM) 684/2026                                                                                     Page 2 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 20:40:22
I.A. 16601/2026
12.       By way of the present application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 &
                                    2 read with
section 151
of the CPC, the plaintiff/applicant seeks an ad-
                                    interim injunction against the defendant from using the trademark
                                    "EASTHRON". The relief, as prayed-for by the applicant, is
                                    reproduced hereinbelow:
CS(COMM) 684/2026                                                                                Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 20:40:22
13.       The plaintiff is stated to be one of the leading battery manufacturers in
                                    India, with its retail and institutional clients across about 30 countries.
The plaintiff is also stated to have 03 manufacturing plants in India and
                                    an annual turnover of about Rs. 3,550.93 crores.
14.       The plaintiff's grievance is that defendant No.1, who is based out of
                                    Haridwar, Uttarakhand and is engaged in the business of selling
                                    batteries is using a deceptively similar mark "EASTHRON" and a
                                    substantially identical trade-dress as that of the plaintiff, as detailed in
                                    the plaint and the documents filed along therewith. Defendant No.2 is
                                    stated to be an entity based out of Guwahati, Assam that prints and
                                    produces the labels and the packaging used by defendant No.1.
15.       Issue notice.
16.       Upon the plaintiff taking steps, let notice be sent to the defendants, by
                                    all permissible modes, returnable for the next date before the learned
                                    Joint Registrar.
17.       Let the notice indicate that reply to the application be filed within 30
                                    days of service; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 30 days
                                    thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
CS(COMM) 684/2026                                                                                Page 4 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 20:40:22
18.       On a first blush reading of the averments as set-out in the plaint and in
                                    the application, and considering defendant No.1's use of the trademark,
                                    wordmark and trade-dress, this court is of the view that the defendant's
                                    use of the trademark, wordmark and trade dress "EASTHRON"
                                    appears to be deceptively similar to the trademark, wordmark and trade
                                    dress "EASTMAN" as used by the plaintiff.
19.       Accordingly, in the opinion of this court, the plaintiff has made-out a
                                    prima facie case in its favour and against the defendants. Furthermore,
                                    considering the facts obtaining in the matter, the balance of
                                    convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff and irreparable harm and
                                    injury would result to the plaintiff if the interim relief sought is not
                                    granted.
20.       Consequently, an ex-parte ad interim injunction is issued in favour of
                                    the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of prayer (a) contained
                                    in the application, till the next date of hearing.
21.       For completion of pleadings in the application, list before the learned
                                    Joint Registrar on 24th September 2026.
22.       List before court thereafter.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
                          JULY 3, 2026/ak
CS(COMM) 684/2026                                                                                Page 5 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 08/07/2026 at 20:40:22

Update Case Entry