Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Trademark Dispute Over 'BROCODE' Alcoholic Beverage
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Trademark Dispute Over 'BROCODE' Alcoholic Beverage
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has passed an order allowing exemption from pre-institution mediation and granting time to file court fees in a commercial suit filed by a leading manufacturer of premium alcoholic products. The plaintiff, who owns the trademark "BROCODE," has alleged trademark infringement, disparagement, and unfair trade practice against the defendants.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed an application seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court granted the exemption, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382. The plaintiff also filed an application seeking exemption from payment of court fees, which was allowed with a direction to file the court fees within two weeks.
Factual Background
The plaintiff is engaged in the production, distribution, and marketing of premium alcoholic products, including the "BROCODE" brand. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants published a video containing disparaging content against the plaintiff's product, claiming it was "poisonous," "deadly," and "not fit for consumption."
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff: The plaintiff contended that the defendants' video was disparaging and defamatory, and intended to scare consumers and malign the product.
Defendants: No written statement has been filed by the defendants, but the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1 accepted the summons and notice.
Reasoning and Analysis
The bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The court directed the defendants to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within two weeks.
Order
The court ordered:
- Exemption from pre-institution mediation: Granted
- Time to file court fees: Two weeks
- Summons and notice: Issued to defendants
- Written statement and replication: To be filed within 30 days
- Affidavit of admission/denial: To be filed with written statement and replication
- Inspection of documents: To be sought and given within prescribed timelines
- List before Joint Registrar: 25.11.2025 for completion of service and pleadings
- List before Court: 04.02.2026
Implications
The order highlights the court's approach to balancing the rights of the parties in commercial disputes. The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with procedural requirements and timelines in commercial litigation.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Aditya Ganju, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Jaiswal, Mr. Samanyu Sethi and Mr. Sahil Safdar, Advocates.
