AMIT BANSAL vs AMIT GARG & ANR

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 31.01.2026 + FAO-IPD 37/2021 AMIT BANSAL .....Appellant versus AMIT GARG & ANR .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Pal Dalmia & Mr. Aditya Dhar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. V.K. Puri & Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.1 along with Respondent No.1-in-Person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT TEJAS KARIA, J 1. The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) assailing the order dated 05.01.2019 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”) in CS No. 1/2018 (“Suit”) whereby the learned Trial Court allowed the application of the Respondents under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and FAO-IPD 37/2021 Page 1 of 21 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SWATI MAYEE SAHU Signing Date:31.01.2026 22:00:12 2 of the CPC granting interim injunction restraining the Appellant from using the Trade Mark ‘ATHERMAL’ or any other deceptively similar Mark during the pendency of the Suit, while dismissing the application of the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. The Respondents filed the Suit before the learned Trial Court, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction restraining the infringement and passing off of the Mark ‘ ’ (“Subject Mark”) claiming that the Appellant illegally imitated the Subject Mark of the Respondents by using the Mark ‘ATHERMAL’. 3. The Plaint filed before the learned Trial Court claims that Respondent No. 1, Mr. Amit Garg is carrying on his business as M/s Athermal Industries AG, manufacturing and marketing a range of goods associated