CASTROL LIMITED vs VIVEK PRATAP SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 & CM APPL. 25373/2025 CASTROL LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Mr. Ritesh, Mr. Ayush, Ms. Chahat and Ms. Vanshika, Advs. versus VIVEK PRATAP SINGH .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 04.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The appellant is one of the leading manufacturers of motor oils in the country. 2. It is a matter of common knowledge that engine oils manufactured by the appellant have been duplicated by several counterfeiters who sell engine oils in cans and containers which are identical in appearance, using marks which are also deceptively similar to those of the appellant. 3. One of us, sitting singly in this Court, has dealt with similar matters in which identical infringements had come up before the Court. As these cases deal with engine oil, and duplicacy can lead Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT FAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 Page 1 of 12 KUMAR Signing Date:08.12.2025 13:07:38 even to loss of lives, the Court has to take an extremely serious view where counterfeiting is seen. 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the learned Single Judge has not passed any order on the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and merely renotified the application and also declined to pass any order appointing a local commissioner to seize the infringing products. 5. The local commissioner appointed by the learned Single Judge was only given power to inventorise the infringing products and no power of seizure. 6. When this matter had come up before us, on the very first date of hearing, given the nature of the dispute, we had passed the following order: “*IN THE HIGH COUR