ABROS SPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. vs ASHISH BANSAL AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) (COMM) 140/2024 ABROS SPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advs. versus ASHISH BANSAL AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pranjal Vyas, Ms. Ayushi Arya and Ms. Samriddhi Tiwari, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL ORDER (ORAL) % 13.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. CM APPL. 11911/2026 (condonation of delay in filing review petition) 1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 243 days in filing the review petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 3. The application is allowed. REVIEW PET. 90/2026 4. The appellant had, in this appeal, urged both infringement and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT FAO(OS) (COMM) 140/2024 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR Signing Date:20.03.2026 17:28:44 passing off. 5. By the order under review, we had noticed this fact and had found that on the aspect of whether the appellant would be entitled to plead infringement, had expressed a view that, as we were not in agreement with the judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd1 and Corza International v. Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd2, which held that an infringement suit would lie, referred the matter to the larger Bench to decide the issue framing questions for that purpose. 6. Incidentally, we may note that, after the order under review was passed, we were shown the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P Sulochana Bai3 which clearly holds that an infringement suit would not lie against a registered trademark. We have, thereafter, followed the said decision. 7. Be that as it may, Mr. Narula’s contention is that as t