KAMAL RAHEJA vs HAHNEMANN PURE DRUG CO.

Judgment text excerpt

$~101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO (COMM) 105/2025, CM APPL. 25863/2025, CM APPL. 25864/2025 & CM APPL. 25865/2025 KAMAL RAHEJA .....Appellant Through: Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Adv. versus HAHNEMANN PURE DRUG CO. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Karla, Mr. Shadman Ali, Mr. K. P. Singh, Mr. Vikrant, Mr. Yashwant Singh Baghel, Mr. Rishabh Thakur and Ms. Lehar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 08.07.2025 C.HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. The learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02), Rohini1 has, by the impugned order dated 7 March 2025, allowed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 filed by the respondent and has dismissed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC2 filed by the appellant, as the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in CS (Comm) 346/20233. By the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court has made the ex parte ad interim order dated 8 June 2023, passed by his learned predecessor, absolute. By the order 1 "the learned Commercial Court" hereinafter 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 3 Hahneman Pure Drug Co. v. Kamal Raheja Signature Not Verified Signed By:AAKANSHA FAO (COMM) 105/2025 Page 1 of 8 SHARMA Signing Date:15.07.2025 17:16:12 dated 8 June 2023, the appellant, and all others acting on his behalf, were restrained from manufacturing, selling, exporting, displaying, advertising or in any other manner dealing or using the trade mark MARKS GO, or any other identical or deceptively similar trademark in respect of skincare cream and components thereof. 2. Dr. Sarabjit Sharma, appearing for the appellant, raises only one contention. The submission is that, as the Drug License issued to the respondent stands suspended, the respondent is not in a position to commerc