Delhi High Court – Orders
Yc Electric Vehicle vs Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two … on 5 March, 2025
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 200/2025 & I.A. Nos. 5902/2025, 5903/2025,
5904/2025, 5905/2025 & 5906/2025
YC ELECTRIC VEHICLE .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Neeraj K. Grover with Mr. Yatin
Chadha, Mr. Mayank Chadha, Mr.
Gurvinder Singh, Mr. Rajdhani
Srivastava and Ms. Dolly Luthra,
Advocates.
(M): 9899904474
Email: [email protected]
versus
BHUVNEESH KAPOOR PROPRIETOR OF TWO FRIENDS
AUTO ELECTRIC CO. .....Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
ORDER
% 05.03.2025
I.A. 5904/2025 (Exemption from filing original and certified copies of
documents)
1. The present is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“CPC“), on behalf of the plaintiff, seeking exemption from
filing original, certified, fair typed copies, clear copies, documents with
proper margin.
2. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Plaintiff shall file legible, clear, and translated copies of the
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 1 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:24
documents, on which the plaintiff may seek to place reliance, before the next
date of hearing.
4. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. 5903/2025 (Exemption from undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation)
5. The present is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from
undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation.
6. Having regard to the facts of the present case and in the light of the
judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Yamini Manohar Versus T.K.D.
Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, and Division Bench of this Court in
Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Versus RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd.,
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529, exemption from undergoing Pre-Institution
Mediation is granted.
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 5905/2025 (Application seeking leave to file additional documents)
8. This is an application under Order XI Rule 1(4), read with Section
151 CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking leave to
file additional documents.
9. The plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents at a later stage,
shall do so strictly as per the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015,
and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
10. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
I.A. No. 5906/2025 (Application seeking extension for filing hash report)
11. This is an application under Section 151 CPC, seeking extension of
time for filing Hash Report under Section 63(4)(C) of Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 (“BSA”).
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 2 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:24
12. In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed,
and extension as sought, is granted.
13. Let the needful be done, accordingly.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 200/2025
15. Let the plaint be registered as suit.
16. Upon filing of the Process Fee, issue summons to the defendant by all
permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement be filed
by the defendant within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons.
Along with the written statement, the defendant shall also file affidavit of
admission/denial of the plaintiff’s documents, without which, the written
statement shall not be taken on record.
17. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication within thirty days
from the date of receipt of the written statement. Further, along with the
replication, if any, filed by the plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of
documents of the defendant, be filed by the plaintiff, without which, the
replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek
inspection of the documents, the same shall be sought and given within the
timelines.
18. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for marking of exhibits on
21st May, 2025.
19. List before the Court on 21st August, 2025.
I.A. 5902/2025 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
20. None appears for the defendant, despite advance service.
21. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the affidavit of service to
submit that the advance service has been given to the defendant on their
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 3 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
authorised email, as is occurring on the website of the defendant. Further,
the defendant has also been served on the personal email account, which is
occurring on the facebook account of the defendant.
22. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining
infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, acts of unfair
competition, seeking damages/rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc.
23. It is submitted that the present suit relates to the plaintiff’s trademark
“YATRI” and various “YATRI” formative trademarks, including, the device
mark/logo(s)
and trademark “YC” and various “YC” formative
trademarks including the device mark/logo(s)
. The plaintiff is the prior adopter, user,
and registered owner of the renowned YATRI and YC trademark(s) with
rights and registration therein, dating back at least to the year 2014, inter
alia in relation to electric rickshaws, electric carts, electric three-wheeler
and other electric vehicles and/or their motors, controllers, differential, parts,
components and accessories. The trademark YATRI also serves as a house
mark for the plaintiff. The trademarks YATRI and YC serve as the trade
name/identity and also as a source identifier for the plaintiff’s
goods/services among the members of trade and public. The plaintiff entity,
namely, YC Electric Vehicle and the plaintiff’s associate entity, namely YC
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 4 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
Electric Vehicle Private Limited, converted into YC Electric Vehicle LLP,
has “YC” as foremost/initial/operative feature of the corporate/trade name.
24. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright
and other proprietary rights in relation to the artistic work in the device
mark/logo
. Because of long, open, continuous, uninterrupted,
exclusive and extensive use, coupled with promotional activities, the YATRI
and YC trademark(s) have acquired enviable goodwill and impeccable trade
reputation among the trade and public, and it has come to be exclusively
identified and associated with the plaintiff only.
25. It is submitted that over the years, the plaintiff has filed several
trademark applications under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and obtained
trademark registrations for the YATRI and YC trademark(s) in various
classes. The list of trademark registrations and pending trademark
applications of the plaintiff which are valid and subsisting, is reproduced as
under:
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 5 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 6 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
26. It is further submitted that the plaintiff got designed and created the
device mark/logo
. The plaintiff has been continuously and uninterruptedly using
the logo/device marks in the course of trade in relation to the e-vehicles
since 2014. The distinctive device mark/logo
constitutes an original artistic work
within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. By virtue of
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 7 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the plaintiff is the first owner of the
copyright subsisting in the YATRI and YC trademark(s) logo/device marks.
Therefore, the device mark/logos are entitled to be protected as original
artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957.
27. It is submitted that the plaintiff conceived and adopted the
trademark(s) YATRI and YC in the year 2014, at least, in respect of e-
rickshaws and the trademarks have obtained valuable goodwill. Since its
establishment in 2014, the plaintiff has grown to become the India’s largest
e-rickshaw manufacturing/selling entity. As per the statistics issued from
time to time by the independent bodies/entities pertaining to the sale of e-
rickshaws in India, the plaintiff has been consistently retaining the top/first
position of largest e-rickshaw manufacturing entity with the highest e-
rickshaw sales in India in past couple of years. The plaintiff’s e-vehicles are
very popular and in high demand across the length and breadth of India.
28. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has established a wide network
of dealers and distributors to sell its e-vehicles all over India under the
YATRI and YC trademark(s). The plaintiff’s products under the YATRI and
YC trademark(s) also have a wide reach, availability and huge demand.
29. It is submitted that in the last week of December, 2024, the plaintiff
got to know that in order to divert business, the defendant had approached
the plaintiff’s dealer on 25th December, 2024, and offered to sell the
defendant’s goods under the impugned marks.
30. It is further submitted that subsequently, in first week of January,
2025, the plaintiff made a preliminary search on the internet and found that
the defendant has been actually using the impugned marks on its website
i.e., https://sahyatri.in/. Though the mark on the defendant’s website is
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 8 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
single word “SAHYATRI”, but to create confusion and sail close to the
plaintiff, the defendant is using the words “SAH” and “Yatri” as separate
elements on its products/e-rickshaws, with prominence on the word “Yatri”
in the following manner:
31. The screenshot of the defendant’s website, showing the use of the
impugned mark in respect of the electric rickshaws are as follows:
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 9 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
32. It is submitted that the plaintiff was further shocked to see that in
order to dupe the unwary and undiscerning class of e rickshaw buyers, the
defendant has listed its impugned goods on third party platforms/websites
including, www.indiamart.com under the impugned identical mark “Yatri E
Rickshaw” so that the customers looking for plaintiff’s YATRI branded
goods mistakenly visit the defendant’s listings and see the defendant’s
impugned goods under identical, almost identical and/or deceptively similar
impugned marks and end up buying the defendant’s impugned goods under
the impression that they have bought the plaintiff’s goods. Illustrative
screenshots of the defendant and its dealer’s product listings under the
impugned identical mark “Yatri E Rickshaw” are reproduced below:
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 10 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 11 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
33. It is submitted that the defendant has also been using the plaintiff’s
trademark “YATRI” on its e-rickshaws. The plaintiff’s trademark “YATRI”
is clearly visible on the defendant’s impugned goods. The dishonest
intention of the defendant is evident from the fact that the defendant is using
the impugned identical mark YATRI on its impugned goods. Photographs of
the defendant’s e-rickshaw running on the roads, bearing the impugned
identical mark “YATRI”, are reproduced below:
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 12 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:25
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 13 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:26
34. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is
aggrieved by the defendant’s adoption of the aforesaid infringing marks. A
comparative table of plaintiff’s trademark(s) and impugned marks, is as
under:
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 14 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:26
35. It is submitted that a bare look at the impugned marks leaves no doubt
that the defendant is following the footsteps of the plaintiff, and has
blatantly imitated the plaintiff’s YATRI and YC trademark(s). The
defendant’s adoption of the identical and nearly identical word mark(s)
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 15 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:26
and/or deceptively similar device mark(s), in relation to identical goods, is
mala fide, utterly dishonest, and with prior knowledge of the reputation and
goodwill of the plaintiff’s goods under its YATRI and YC trademark(s).
36. It is further submitted that there is no plausible reason for the
defendant to adopt such identical, nearly identical and/or deceptively similar
marks for identical goods, other than to create confusion and deception
regarding the origin of said goods and to project itself to be associated with
the plaintiff and plaintiff’s prior adopted, registered and renowned YATRI
and YC trademark(s).
37. It is submitted that the defendant’s impugned marks usurp the
plaintiff’s YATRI and YC trademark(s). The defendant has adopted the
impugned marks, thereby, trying to confuse the unwary consumers with
imperfect recollection to believe that the goods of the plaintiff and the
defendant have the same origin. Clearly, the sole intent of the defendant is to
signify a trade connection with the plaintiff and augment the chances of
confusion and deception amongst the customers, who in this case comprise
mostly of uneducated class of rickshaw drivers.
38. It is submitted that considering the plaintiff’s open, extensive,
exclusive, continuous and longstanding use, prolonged goodwill,
voluminous sales and pan India availability of the goods sold under YATRI
and YC trademark(s), the defendant cannot deny the prior knowledge of the
plaintiff’s YATRI and YC trademark(s) and its goodwill and reputation.
The defendant has knowingly, deliberately and dishonestly adopted the
impugned identical, nearly identical and/or deceptively similar mark to free
ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s renowned YATRI
and YC trademark(s). Adoption of the deceptively similar mark by the
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 16 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:26
defendant and that too in respect of identical goods is not a mere
coincidence, but is a testimony to its dishonest and fraudulent intentions to
derive unjust pecuniary benefits by spreading confusion amongst the buyers.
39. In the above circumstances, the plaintiff has demonstrated a prima
facie case for grant of injunction and, in case, no ex-parte ad-interim
injunction is granted, the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss. Further,
balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff, and against the
defendant.
40. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, its assignees,
associates, affiliates, successors, manufacturers, employees, agents, dealers,
retailers, wholesalers, distributors, licensees, franchisees, stockiest or any
persons/entities that are under the control of the defendant or are related or
affiliated to the defendant and all others, acting through, for and on behalf
of the defendant, are restrained from using in any manner the impugned
marks “YATRI”, “SAHYATRI”
and/or any other mark or marks,
identical to or deceptively similar to or containing the plaintiff’s trademarks
“YATRI”, “YC”, either as a
brand name, trademark, trading style, corporate name, domain name,
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 17 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:26
metatag, hashtag, web-address or any manner, whatsoever, in respect of the
e-rickshaw, e-vehicles, their parts, components and accessories and/or any
other similar/related/allied/cognate goods and/or in any manner
whatsoever/that may amount to infringement of plaintiff’s
trademark/copyright/passing off.
41. Issue notice to the defendant by all permissible modes, upon filing of
the Process Fee, returnable on the next date of hearing.
42. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks.
43. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks, thereafter.
44. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, be done, within a period
of one week.
45. List before the Court on 21st August, 2025.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
MARCH 5, 2025
c
CS(COMM) 200/2025 Page 18 of 18
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/03/2025 at 00:38:26