Delhi High Court – Orders
Triveni Household Items Manufacturers … vs M/S Mapples Interior Llp & Ors on 21 July, 2025
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 689/2025
TRIVENI HOUSEHOLD ITEMS MANUFACTURERS PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Ankit
Arvind & Mr. Shashwat Rakshit,
Advocates.
versus
M/S MAPPLES INTERIOR LLP & ORS. .....Defendants
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 21.07.2025
I.A. 16127/2025 (Exemption)
1. This is an Application seeking exemption from filing original /
certified, typed, translated from vernacular and fair copies of the documents.
2. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 16125/2025 (Exemption)
4. This is an Application seeking exemption from undergoing pre-
institution mediation proceedings under Section 12 A of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (“CPC“).
5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 1 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
institution mediation is granted.
6. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 16126/2025 (Application seeking leave to file additional documents)
7. 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 along with its supporting affidavit.
8. 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.
9. The Application stands disposed of, with the aforesaid directions.
I.A. 16128/2025 (Extension of time)
10. This is an Application seeking two weeks’ time for filing Court Fees.
11. Considering the submissions made in the present Application, time of
two weeks is granted to file the Court Fees.
12. The Application stands disposed of.
I.A. 16129/2025 (Exemption)
13. This is an Application seeking exemption from serving advance Suit
papers on the Defendants.
14. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought an urgent ex-parte ad-
interim injunction along with the appointment of the Local Commissioners,
the exemption from advance service of Suit papers to the Defendants is
granted.
15. The Application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 689/2025
16. Let the Plaint be registered as a Suit.
17. The present Suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 2 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
injunction restraining alleged infringement of trade marks, passing off,
unfair trade practice, rendition of accounts, damages, etc. against the
Defendants to restrain them from using the Trade Marks “TRIVENI” /
“TRIVENIINTERIO” / “TRIVENI INTERIO” / TRIVENI INTERIO
ALMIRAH” / “TRIVENI STEELIUM” / ” ” /
” “/” ” (“Impugned Trade Marks”).
18. Issue Summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of
Process Fee. The Summons to the Defendants shall indicate that the Written
Statement to the Plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of
receipt of Summons. Along with the Written Statement, the Defendant shall
also file an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of the documents of the
Plaintiff, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record.
19. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file the Replication within 15 days
of the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication, if any,
filed by the Plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission / Denial of documents of the
Defendants, 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 any
documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
20. List before this Court on 03.09.2025.
I.A. 16123/2025 (U/O-XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC)
21. This Application has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking Interim
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 3 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
Injunction against the Defendants.
22. The Plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated and registered
under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at B-100, G.B.
Nagar, Sector 67, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201301.
The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Trade Marks “TRIVENI” and
“TRIVENI ALMIRAH” for steel almirahs and other furniture products.
23. It is stated by the Plaintiff that through its predecessors, the Plaintiff
coined and adopted the Trade Marks “TRIVENI” and “TRIVENI
ALMIRAH” in the year 1995 for the business of manufacturing and
marketing almirah and other furniture. The Plaintiff states that on
22.06.2007, the Plaintiff has got the registration for Trade Mark
” ” in Class 20 bearing Trade Marks Registration No.
1571155.
24. The Plaintiff states that Plaintiff’s products are sold in over 1000
cities through a network of more than 3500 dealers across India. It is further
stated that goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff in the Plaintiff’s Trade
Marks “TRIVENI” / “TRIVENI ALMIRAH” / ” ”
(“Plaintiff’s Trade Marks”) is evident from the sales figures of the
Plaintiff’s Group of Companies over the last few years. Plaintiff states that it
has achieved sales turnover of ₹381.013 crores for the financial year 2024-
2025. It is stated that the Plaintiff has incurred huge expenses on
advertisement and promotion of its goods in the last few years and given the
widespread promotional and advertising activities undertaken by theCS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 4 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks “TRIVENI” and “TRIVENI
ALMIRAH” have become the source identifier of the Plaintiff and its goods
and services.
25. Plaintiff states that Defendant No. 1 having its registered office at QR
No. C- 1361/3, Ramsagar Indra Nagar, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh – 226016, is
in the business of manufacturing and sale of steel almirahs under the
Impugned Trade Marks. Defendants No. 2 to 4 are the partners of Defendant
No. 1. Defendant No. 5 is an entity owned and operated by Defendant No. 3
and involved in the sale of the alleged infringing goods on behalf of
Defendant No. 1, operating from the same address as that of Defendant No.
1. Defendant No. 6 is in the business of manufacturing corrugated boxes,
and is manufacturing the corrugated box for Defendants No. 1 to 5 under the
aforesaid Trade Marks.
26. The Plaintiff states that it became aware about the business activities
of Defendant No. 1 and 2 for the first time in December 2024, when the
Plaintiff came across the Trade Mark application bearing No. 6178067 for
the Trade Mark ” ” in Class 20. The Plaintiff states that, the
Plaintiff then issued a legal notice to Defendants No. 1 and 2 asking to
cease-and-desist from using the Impugned Trade Marks followed by a
reminder on 15.01.2025. Further it is stated that no response was received
from the Defendants either to the legal notice or the reminder. It is stated
that at the time of issuing this legal notice, the Plaintiff did not come across
any products of the Defendants being sold in the market.
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 5 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
27. Plaintiff further states that while issuing the aforesaid legal notice, the
Plaintiff also came to know that Defendants had filed several Trade Mark
applications in Class 20 for the Impugned Trade Marks in the year 2021 on
proposed to be used basis, bearing application Nos. 5155437 and 5155438
for the Trade Marks ” ” and ” “. It is
stated that during the examination of both the applications, the Plaintiff’s
registered Trade Mark bearing No. 1571155 was cited in the examination
report, and thereafter on the basis of the Plaintiff’s registration, the
application no. 5155438 of Defendant No. 3 was refused by the Trade Mark
Registry.
28. The Plaintiff further states that in the first week of June 2025, it came
to know through its market representatives that the Defendants are
expanding their business of marketing and selling steel almirahs under the
Impugned Trade Marks throughout the country and are allegedly using an
identical / deceptively similar Trade Marks as that of the Plaintiff for
identical goods i.e., steel almirah, with the intention to come as close as
possible to the Plaintiff.
29. The Plaintiff states that Defendant No. 2 was previously employed as
its Marketing Manager until August 2016 and was well aware of the rights
of the Plaintiff’s in the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks, dealer network, as well as
confidential information such as dealer list and the quotes given to the
dealers for creating opportunities in the market. It is alleged that Defendant
No. 2 along with the other Defendants has now started an identical business
in the same industry and manufacturing and selling steel almirahs as that of
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 6 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
the Plaintiff, being well-aware of the Plaintiff’s adoption and use of the
Plaintiff’s Trade Marks.
30. The Plaintiff states that Defendants No. 1 to 5 have also registered the
domain name https://triveniinterio.com on 27.06.2023 and are using the
Impugned Trade Marks on their website to attract consumers from the
jurisdiction of this Court.
31. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants’ Impugned Trade Marks are
almost identical / deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks and the
same is likely to cause confusion and deception among the traders,
distributors and buyers.
32. The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants’ alleged adoption and
use of the Impugned Trade Marks is with mala fide intention to pass off its
goods as that of the Plaintiff and the Defendants are allegedly attempting to
mislead the industry, trade and general public into the belief that their goods
originate / emanate from the Plaintiff and that there is an intention to
illegally benefit from the goodwill and reputation acquired by the Plaintiff
for the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks.
33. Plaintiff submits that as the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the
Trade Mark ” ” it has statutory right to restrain third parties
from using the identical / similar trade marks for identical / similar or even
different goods and that the adoption and use of the Impugned Trade Marks
by the Defendants for almirahs amounts to an infringement of the Plaintiff’s
Trade Marks and violates the Plaintiff’s statutory right of exclusive use of its
registered Trade Marks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
34. Plaintiff further states that it has no control over the quality of goods
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 7 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
being sold by the Defendants under the Impugned Trade Marks and that any
deficiency in the quality of the goods and service being provided by the
Defendants, under the said Trade Marks will directly and adversely affect
and cause irreparable prejudice, damage and injury to the goodwill and
reputation of the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks.
35. Mr. Gopal Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff,
submitted that the Plaintiff has been using the Trade Mark “TRIVENI” since
as early as 1995-1996. The learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the
dominant feature of the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks is the word “TRIVENI.”
The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on a comparative table to
demonstrate that the Trade Marks adopted by the Defendants are deceptively
similar to that of the Plaintiff’s. The said comparative table is reproduced
below-
Plaintiff's Trade Marks Defendants' Trade Marks
TRIVENI TRIVENI
TRIVENI ALMIRAH TRIVENI INTERIO
TRIVENI INTERIO ALMIRAH
36. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Plaintiff, being
the prior adopter, user, and registered owner of the Trade Mark “TRIVENI,”
is entitled to protection. The identity between the trade marks is so close that
the products are indistinguishable. The learned Senior Counsel submitted
that the Plaintiff’s case is based on three key points i.e., (i) the deceptive
similarity of the Defendants’ Trade Marks / products; (ii) prior adoption and
use of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark since 1999; and (iii) the involvement of
Defendant No. 2, who is an ex-employee of the Plaintiff.
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 8 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
PLAINTIFF’S PRODUCTS DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS
37. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the trade mark application in
Class 20 filed by Defendant No. 3 for the Trade Mark “TRIVENI
STEELIUM,” on proposed to be used basis and invited this Court’s attention
to the examination report dated 25.10.2021 and the list of conflicting trade
marks, submitting that the first conflicting trade mark listed in this list is that
of the Plaintiff.
38. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a legal notice dated
19.12.2024 was served on Defendants No. 1 and 3, demanding that they
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 9 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
cease-and-desist from using the Impugned Trade Marks and withdraw all
pending trade mark and copyright applications and / or registrations. A
reminder notice dated 15.01.2025 was also sent, but no response was
received from the Defendants.
39. To support the submission that Defendant No. 2 is an ex-employee of
the Plaintiff, the learned Senior Counsel referred to employment records
including pay slips, a screenshot taken from the website of Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation, India showing Defendant No. 2’s employment
details, and Defendant No. 2’s resignation letter dated 23.08.2016. The
learned Senior Counsel further referred to documents showing that
Defendant No. 2 is currently the designated partner of Defendant No. 1 and
holds a Director Identification Number. It was submitted that Defendant No.
2 is well-acquainted with the Plaintiff’s brand, products, and the relevant
trade mark classification. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
given the identical / deceptive similarity of the trade marks and products,
and Defendant No. 2’s earlier involvement in the Plaintiff’s sales operations,
the infringement appears deliberate. Reliance was also placed on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nutrica Pusti Healthcare
Pvt. Ltd. v. Morepen Laboratories Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2631, to
submit that, Defendant No. 2 as an ex-employee was aware of the Plaintiff’s
Trade Marks, and there is a clear indication of dishonest intent by Defendant
No. 2 in violating the Plaintiff’s statutory rights under Section 29(1) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, weight must be given to the fact that
Defendant No. 2 was an ex-employee of the Plaintiff while considering the
grant of interim injunction in the present case.
40. The Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Senior
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 10 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
Counsel and examined the material placed on record. The Plaintiff is the
proprietor of the Trade Marks “TRIVENI” and “TRIVENI ALMIRAH” and
has been using these marks since 1995 through its predecessors. The
Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the Trade Mark
” ” in Class 20. Relevant data demonstrating long-standing
commercial use, and market presence has also been placed on record. The
documents and comparative charts relied upon indicate that the Impugned
Trade Marks adopted by the Defendants are prima facie deceptively similar
to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks.
41. Prima facie, as Defendant No. 2 is an ex-employee of the Plaintiff and
privy to its pricing, branding, and distribution strategies, the Impugned
Trade Marks are suggestive of mala fide intent. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
has made out a prima facie case for the grant of ad-interim ex parte
injunction. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, as the
continued use of the deceptively similar Impugned Trade Marks by the
Defendants would cause confusion among consumers and trade channels
and irreparably damage the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. It is clear
that the Plaintiff has no control over the quality of the Defendants’ goods,
and any substandard products in the market bearing deceptively similar
Impugned Trade Marks are likely to adversely impact the Plaintiff’s
goodwill and reputation. Given the urgency and likelihood of deception, this
Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to urgent interim protection.
42. Accordingly, the Defendants, their distributors, dealers,
manufacturers, retailers, agents, licensees, affiliates, associates, stockists
shall stand restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 11 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
retailing, distributing, importing-exporting any products under the Impugned
Trade Marks or any other trade mark, which is identical or deceptively
similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks.
43. Let the Reply to the present Application be filed within a period of
four weeks after service of pleadings and documents. Rejoinder thereto, if
any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
44. List before this Court on 03.09.2025.
I.A. 16124/2025 (Appointment of Local Commissioners)
45. This is an Application filed under Order XXVI Rules 9 & 10 and
Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC for the appointment
of Local Commissioners.
46. Accordingly, in order to ensure that the injunction is fully complied
with, it is deemed appropriate to appoint Local Commissioners to visit the
Defendant’s premises at the following address:
Sr. Particulars Name of the Local
No. Commissioner
1. Mr Narendra Kumar Srivastava trading Adv. Abhishek Singh
as M/s Mapples Interior LLP / M/s Mobile No. 9015203289
Grihasthi Industries Plot C-02, UPSIDC
Industrial Area Deva Road, Lucknow
226009
2. M/S Autar Packaging Adv. Samarth Luthra
2406, Ganga Nagar Amousi, Sarojini Mobile No. 9953998888
Nagar Lucknow – 226008
47. The mandate of the Local Commissioners is as under:
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 12 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
i) The Local Commissioners shall visit the premises of the
Defendants as per the above table, to inspect and seize any
infringing goods of the Defendants bearing the Impugned Trade
Marks or any other product which is identical to and / or
deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ Trade Marks, including
books of accounts and stock register;
ii) The Local Commissioners are permitted to seize the infringing
goods at the above premises and if knowledge is acquired of
any other premises where the goods could be stored, the Local
Commissioners are free to record the same and then visit the
other premises and conduct a seizure there as well;
iii) The Local Commissioners shall also inspect and seize any
product materials including pamphlets, brochures, stickers,
packaging materials, dyes or blocks used for preparing the
manufacturing materials, display boards, sign boards,
advertising material, dies or blocks, unfinished, packed,
unpacked impugned goods or any other documents, wrapper
etc. so that it can be ensured that no fresh manufacturing of the
impugned goods can take place;
iv) The Local Commissioner shall also obtain the details as to since
when infringing goods or products are being used by the
Defendants under the Impugned Trade Marks and obtain copies
of the accounts if the same is found to be sold in market;
v) The Local Commissioners shall obtain accounts including
ledgers, stock registers, invoice books, receipt books, cash
books, purchase and sale records and any other books of recordCS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 13 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
or commercial transactions kept at the premises of the
Defendants, and take photocopy and / or record of all such
transactions that pertain to impugned goods, if any. The
Defendants shall cooperate and give passwords to the
computers and the files containing the accounts, if the same is
stored on the computer or a specific software;
vi) After preparation of the inventory, the infringing goods under
the Impugned Trade Marks in fully manufactured or unfinished
condition, including packaging materials, advertising,
promotional materials, pamphlets, brochures, boxes, videos,
hoardings, brochures, banners, signage, cartons and other
material bearing the Impugned Trade Marks and packaging
which are similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Marks shall be
released to the Defendants on superdari. The monetary value of
the stock shall also be ascertained;
vii) The Local Commissioners are also permitted to break open the
locks, with police help, if access to the premises where the
infringing goods and products have been stocked /
manufactured, is denied to the Commissioners;
viii) Upon being requested, the concerned, the Commissioner of
Police / Superintendent of Police in Uttar Pradesh shall render
necessary cooperation for execution of the Commissions, as per
this order;
ix) The Local Commissioners are permitted to take photographs
and videograph of the proceedings of the Commissions, if it is
deemed appropriate. Two representatives of the Plaintiff, which
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 14 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14
would include a lawyer, are permitted to accompany the Local
Commissioners;
x) The Local Commissioners, while executing the Commissions,
shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the
Defendants, except for the purposes of the execution of the
Commissions. The Commissions shall be executed in a peaceful
manner.
48. The Order passed today shall be communicated by the Local
Commissioners to the Defendants. Copy of the Order and complete paper
book shall be served by the Local Commissioners upon the Defendants at
the time of execution of the Commissions.
49. The fees of the Local Commissioners are fixed at ₹1,00,000/- each
excluding out of pocket expenses, travel, accommodation etc., which is to be
borne by the Plaintiff.
50. The Commissions shall be executed on 28.07.2025, and the Report(s)
of the Local Commissioner(s) shall be filed within a period of two weeks
thereafter.
51. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within two
weeks after the execution of the Commission.
52. It is directed that the present Order shall not be uploaded on the
Court’s website until the execution of the Commissions is completed, to
enable effective execution thereof.
53. List before the Joint Registrar on 08.09.2025.
54. Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.
TEJAS KARIA, J
JULY 21, 2025/sms
CS(COMM) 689/2025 Page 15 of 15
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 15/08/2025 at 21:52:14