RITIK KUMAR vs R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS

Judgment text excerpt

$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 07.04.2026 + FAO (COMM) 79/2026 & CM APPL. 17286/2026 RITIK KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi, Mr. Abhinav Jaganathan and Ms. Preeti Shukla, Advocates versus R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rima Majumdar, Ms. Deboleena Dutta, Ms. Prashni Kathuria, Mrs. Bindra Rana and Mr. Vikrant Rana, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/defendant assailing the order dated 02.02.2026 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Ld. District Judge (Commercial)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘Trial Court’] in CS (Comm) No. 127 of 2026 titled ‘R.H. Agro Overseas v. Shri Ritik Kumar and Anr.’. 2. By way of the impugned order, the Trial Court, proceeded to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant from using the impugned mark NAFEEZA as well as the impugned Label/trade-dress in Signature Not Verified Signed By:MAHIMA FAO (COMM) 79/2026 Page 1 of 12 SHARMA Signing Date:08.04.2026 17:15 exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’]. Through a common order, the Trial Court also allowed the applications seeking (i) exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’]; and (ii) appointment of Local Commissioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC. 3. The Respondent/plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off, claiming statutory rights in the registered mark ‘NAFIS’ in Class 30 for selling rice. The Ap