Delhi High Court – Orders
Hugo Boss Ag vs Javid Ahmad on 4 August, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 792/2025 & I.A. 18785-18789/2025
HUGO BOSS AG .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rishi Bansal, Ms. Kriti Pathak,
Ms. Sovanna Dash and Mr. S.K.
Bansal, Advs.
versus
JAVID AHMAD .....Defendant
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 04.08.2025
I.A. 18788/2025 (Application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption
from filing original/certified copies of the statutory documents/orders,
documents not having sufficient left hand margins, documents in vernacular
language, copies of illegible/dim documents)
1. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from
filing certified, typed/legible copies of the dim/ illegible documents, English
translation of vernacular documents and documents with insufficient
margins.
2. Original documents shall be produced/filed at the time of
Admission/Denial, if sought, strictly as per the provisions of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018.
3. The typed and/or fair copies of the illegible documents along with
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 1 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
documents with improper margin be filed within four (4) weeks. Further the
English translation of the documents in vernacular language be also filed
within four (4) weeks.
4. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 18789/2025 (Application under Section 148 and 149 of CPC, 1908 on
behalf of the plaintiff seeking extension of time from filing the appropriate
Court fee at the time of instituting the suit)
5. The present application has been filed under Section 148 and 149
CPC on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking extension of time for filing the
appropriate court fee at this stage and seeking grant of extension of a period
of two (2) weeks to deposit the court fees.
6. The time sought for is granted, failing which the consequences of
Order VII Rule 11(b) CPC shall follow.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the application stands allowed.
I.A. 18786/2025 (Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 seeking exemption from invoking pre-institution mediation
under Section XII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015)
8. The present application has been filed under Section 151 of the CPC
by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation
as per Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
9. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent
interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini
Manohar v. T.K.D. Kreethi1, exemption from the requirement of pre-
institution mediation is granted to the plaintiff.
10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
1
(2024) 5 SCC 815.
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 2 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
I.A. 18787/2025 (Application under Order XI Rule 1(4) (as amended by the
Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate
Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015) read with Section 151 CPC, 1908
seeking leave to file additional documents)
11. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under
Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts
Act, 2015 (‘Commercial Courts Act‘)] read with Section 151 CPC, within
thirty (30) days.
12. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents will file the
same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court
(Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘DHC Rules’).
13. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
14. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 792/2025
15. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
16. Summons be issued to the Defendant by all permissible modes on
filing of process fee. Affidavit of service(s) be filed within two (2) weeks.
17. The summons shall indicate that the written statement must be filed
within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The
Defendant shall also file affidavits of admission/denial of the documents
filed by the Plaintiff, failing which the written statement shall not be taken
on record.
18. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30)
days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 3 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
accompanied by affidavits of admission/denial in respect of the documents
filed by the Defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on
record.
19. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to
an order of costs against the concerned party.
20. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance
with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
21. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service
and pleadings on 10.09.2025.
22. List before the Court on 26.11.2025.
I.A. 18785/2025 (application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
23. The present application has been filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 &
2 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
24. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff is a company
duly incorporated under the laws of Federal Republic of Germany. He states
that the origin of Plaintiff dates back to the year 1924.
24.1. He states that mark ‘HUGO BOSS’ was adopted for the first time by
the Plaintiff in May 1948. He states that on 27.06.1984 the Plaintiff
company ‘HUGO BOSS GMBH’ went public and later its name was
changed to ‘HUGO BOSS AG’.
24.2. He states that Plaintiff is engaged in wide range of goods in the
premium and luxury segment, inter alia including apparel and clothing for
men, women and children etc. He states that in the year 1970 ‘BOSS’ was
launched by ‘HUGO BOSS’ under the trademark/label ‘BOSS’,
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 4 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
‘ ‘, and ‘BOSS’ formative trademarks/labels for the above said
goods. He states that ‘BOSS’ forms the most essential and prominent feature
of Plaintiff’s corporate name.
24.3. He states that Plaintiff already had long-term experience in golf
sponsorship, and in 1997 Plaintiff launched the ‘BOSS’ Golf collection
which included high-quality sportswear.
24.4. He states that in the year 1999 the Plaintiff launched ‘BOSS Orange’
which was related to casual menswear. He states that in the year 2006 the
said ‘BOSS Orange’ collection started selling womenswear as well.
24.5. He states that in 2011, the Plaintiff launched its most luxurious line
i.e., ‘BOSS Selection MADE TO MEASURE’ offering tailored suits for
men. He states that the said BOSS Selection was later merged with ‘BOSS’
collection.
24.6. He states that products under the above-mentioned trademarks/labels
of the Plaintiff are being sold in 129 countries including India.
24.7. He states that in order to acquire statutory rights in its
trademarks/labels i.e., ‘HUGO BOSS’, ‘HUGO’, ‘BOSS’, ‘BOSS HUGO
BOSS’ and formative ‘BOSS’ and ‘HUGO’ marks, the Plaintiff filed various
international applications in different jurisdictions including Singapore,
USA, Australia etc., under numbers T0405217D, 79001454 and 1002353
respectively.
24.8. He states that the list at paragraph ’13’ of the plaint provides the
details of the Plaintiff’s trademark applications/registrations in India, which
is reproduced below:
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 5 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 6 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
24.9. He states that the Plaintiff’s products in the above-mentioned
trademarks/labels have been appreciated by the customers in India and the
Plaintiff has made sales of EUR 8,134,884 in the year 2024.
24.10. He states that Plaintiff also owns and operates the website
www.hugoboss.com since 1997. He states that a website dedicated for
Indian customers is also in place i.e., www.hugoboss.in. He states that
Plaintiffs’ said goods bearing the said trademarks/labels are also soldCS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 7 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
extensively throughout India via various exclusive retail stores and in
leading departmental stores such as Lifestyle and Shoppers Stop.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s said goods are sold in India via online shopping
portals/e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Tata CliQ Luxury, Ajio, etc.
He states that Plaintiff has a strong presence on social networking websites
such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter etc.
24.11. He states that the Defendant is proprietor of ‘BOS’ (Burj of Sports)
and is located in Jammu and Kashmir. He states that the Defendant is
engaged in the bussiness of manufacturing, soliciting, trading, selling,
offering for sale, displaying and marketing of goods and services including
apparel, sports equipment such as cricket balls, cricket bat, cricket bat bags
and other allied and cognate products and services via their Instagram
account (https://www.instagram.com/burjofsport /?locale=zhhans&hl=da)
and their Facebook account (https://www.facebook.com/people/Burj-Of-
Sports/l 0008933 7361832). He states that Defendant also claims to have an
active webiste i.e., https://burjofsports.in/.
24.12. He states that the Defendant has adopted and is using the infringing
mark, which is identical and deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s
trademarks/lables/tradename i.e., ‘BOSS’. He states that this similarity is
evident in the use of infringing mark on the t-shirt shown in the image
available on the link of the Defendant.
24.13. He states that on comparision of the infringing marks of the
Defendant and Plaintiff’s trademarks/lables a high degree of resemblance
can be seen. A comparative chart of the impugned marks and Plaintiff’s
trademarks/labels is reproduced herein below:
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 8 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
24.14. He states that Defendant is advertising the impugned marks on clothes
which shows that the Defendant is trying to ride on the goodwill of the
Plaintiff, by showing association with the Plaintiff.
24.15. He states that in February, 2024 the Plaintiff came across the
Defendant’s application filed with the Registrar of Trademark for theimpugned mark ‘Burj of Sports’/’ ‘ vide application no.
57773540 in Class 28 on a proposed to be used basis. He states that the
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 9 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
Plaintiff filed an opposition against the said application on 26.02.2024,
which was served on the Defendant on 11.03.2024. He states that the
Defendant filed a Counter Statement wherein it was stated by the Defendant
that the impugned mark is a unique coined expression and further asserted
that the impugned mark/label is phonetically, visually, and textually distinct
from the Plaintiffs trademark/label.
24.16. He states that the Defendant’s use of the impugned marks is
fraudulent and likely to lead to confusion and deception amongst members
of the public. He relies upon the cricket bat purchased from the Defendant
where the impugned mark has been dressed up in the colours black and
white which is identical with the colour combination and lettering style of
the Plaintiff’s mark.
25. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused
the record.
26. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks/labels
‘HUGO BOSS’, ‘HUGO’, and ‘BOSS’, under which it engages in the
manufacture and sale of clothing, apparel, sportswear, and various other
goods. The colour combination of the Plaintiff’s trademark is consistently in
black and white.
27. It appears from the record that Defendant’s trademark is ‘BURJ OF
SPORTS’ and it uses ‘BOS’ as the acronym. In the application filed with the
trademark registry, Defendant has proposed a device mark
, which as is apparent is in colour blue and white as also
stylized writing of the letters.
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 10 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
However, in departure from its proposed device mark, the Defendant
has been applying a distinct mark ‘BOS’ on its products (including sports
equipment and sportswear) without its trademark ‘BURJ OF SPORTS’ and
in a colour combination which is black and white, with a lettering style
different. The impugned mark in black and white is distinct from its
proposed mark filed before the trademark registry.
28. This Court has examined the marks of the Plaintiff as well as the
Defendant as seen on the t-shirt of the image2. The infringing marks of the
Defendant i.e., ‘ ‘ and ‘ ‘ is deceptively
similar to the trademarks/labels of the Plaintiff, as it is also in black and
white and the stylization of letters is similar to the lettering style of the
Plaintiff. A perusal of the infringing marks of the Defendant i.e.,
‘ ‘ and ‘ ‘ prima facie, reveals that the
infringing marks used by the Defendant due to its lettering style and colour
combination are visually, phonetically and structurally similar to that of the
Plaintiff’ trademarks/labels and has been adopted by the Defendant without
any cogent reasons. The essential part of the Plaintiff’s trademarks/labels
i.e., ‘BOSS’ has been deceptively copied using similar font and colour
except for the fact that a single letter ‘S’ is missing, which does not have a
2
At pages ’24’ and ’27’ of the documents of the Plaintiff and at pages ’74’ and ’76’ of the plaint.
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 11 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
bearing because phonetically both sounds exactly similar. The identity in the
marks is close and to an unwary consumer may appear to be the product of
the Plaintiff. Conspicuously, the Defendant’s trademark ‘BURJ OF
SPORTS’ finds no mention under the impugned mark BOS as it appears on
the t-shirt3.
29. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that a
prima facie case of infringement and passing off is made out in favour of the
Plaintiff. Further the balance of convenience also lies in the favour of the
Plaintiff and irreparable harm or injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an
interim injunction order is not passed.
30. This Court notes that at this ex-parte ad-interim injunction stage,
injunction is only being granted qua clothing, apparel and sportswear being
manufactured and sold by the Defendant under the infringing marks i.e.,
‘ ‘ and ‘ ‘.
31. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendant and its
proprietors, partners or directors, and all others acting for and on behalf of
the Defendant, shall stand restrained from manufacturing, trading,
supplying, selling, offering for sale, advertising, retailing, distributing,
directly or indirectly dealing in clothing, apparel and sportswear products
under the infringing marks amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff’s
registered trademark/passing off.
32. The Defendant is further restrained from using any indicia whatsoever
3
At pages ’24’ and ’27’ of the documents of the Plaintiff and at pages ’74’ and ’76’ of the plaint.
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 12 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30
to show any association or affiliation or connection of the Defendant or its
products (i.e., clothing, apparel and sportswear products) with the Plaintiff.
33. For the remaining reliefs sought for by the Plaintiff with respect to
sports equipment i.e., cricket bats and balls etc., the matter will be taken up
after the Defendant has entered appearance.
34. Issue Notice to the Defendant through all modes, upon filing of
process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing.
35. Let the reply to this application be filed within a period of four (4)
weeks, from receipt of notice.
36. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks
thereafter.
37. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done within a period
of two (2) weeks from today.
38. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service
and pleadings on on 10.09.2025.
39. List before the Court on 26.11.2025.
40. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official
website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated
as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No
physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
AUGUST 4, 2025/msh/sk
CS(COMM) 792/2025 Page 13 of 13
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 06/08/2025 at 22:04:30