Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO (COMM) 361/2025, CM APPL. 82625/2025, CM APPL.
82626/2025, CM APPL. 82627/2025, CM APPL. 82628/2025
& CM APPL. 82629/2025.
NVYBE E COMMERCE THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR DARSHAN VIJAY SURANA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Sudarshan Bansal, Ms. Pooja Jain, Mr. Shivang Bansal, Mr. Shivendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Devansh Mishra, Mr. Apoorv Bisht, Advs.
Through:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT
24.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 21 November 2025, whereby the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts), Patiala House Courts, has passed an ad interim order on an application by the respondent as the plaintiff in CS (Comm) 878/2025[1], restraining the appellants in the following terms:
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v. N’VYBE E-Commerce • manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, soliciting, displaying or promoting-whether physically or through online platforms, including websites, ecommerce portals or social media—any goods bearing the impugned trademarks/labels/logos “N’VYBE” or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s registered trademarks/labels “NY BAE” and its formative marks; and • engaging in any acts of infringement, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, falsification or any other unfair trade practice likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers.
18. Accordingly, an ex parte ad-interim injunction is granted in favour of plaintiff and against defendants. Plaintiff is directed to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC forthwith.
2. Mr. Bansal, appearing for the appellants has, at the outset, drawn our attention to para 34 of the plaint in the suit filed by the respondent in which it is specifically pleaded that the appellants had launched their business operations bearing the mark “N’VYBE in 2022”.
3. He invokes para 14 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Wander Ltd v. Antox India (P) Ltd[2], which advises Courts to adopt a different approach in cases where the defendant has been using the mark for some time before the suit was instituted.
4. In these circumstances, Mr. Bansal submits that the learned Commercial Court ought at least to have issued notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC and allowed 1990 Supp SCC 727 him to file a response before taking a view on the matter.
5. This Court has, in various cases, interpreted the aforenoted paragraph of the judgment in Wander to hold that, where the defendant has been using the impugned mark for some time, the court should ideally not pass ex parte interim orders and should give the defendant an opportunity to file a reply.
6. In that view of the matter, we have heard learned Counsel for the respondent who has essentially addressed the matter on merits.
7. In view of the aforesaid, we are in agreement with Mr. Bansal that, in view of the averments in para 34 of the plaint, to the effect that the appellants were using the mark N’VYBE since 2022, and notice should have been issued on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 and the appellants ought to have been granted an opportunity to file a response before any view was taken on the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.
8. Without, therefore, going into merits, we dispose of the appeal in the following terms:
(i) Notice shall be deemed to have been issued in the suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.
(ii) The appellants would file its response to the said application positively within a period of ten days from today.
(iii) Summons shall be deemed to have been issued in the suit and notice in the application.
(iv) Written Statement and replication would be filed in accordance with the provisions of the CPC.
9. However, the appellants are directed to file its response to the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, positively within ten days from today with advance copy to the learned Counsel for the respondent, who may file its response, thereto, before the next date before learned Commercial Courts.
10. On the next date, that is, 12 January 2026, the learned Commercial Court would reconsider the respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and take a de novo decision thereon uninfluenced by the order under challenge, which is therefore, set aside.
11. In order to expedite matters, both sides are also directed to place on record short notes of respective submissions before the learned Commercial Courts, not exceeding four pages on the application of the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC at least 24 hours in advance of the next date of hearing before the learned Commercial Court.
12. We clarify that we have not examined this matter and passed this order only because the impugned order was passed without notice to the appellants.
13. The right of the parties to seek legal remedies, should they continued to remain aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commercial Courts, stands reserved.
14. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J DECEMBER 24, 2025