Delhi High Court – Orders
M And B Engineering Limited vs Laxman D. Nagare Dba Swaraj Roofing … on 17 July, 2025
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 495/2025
M AND B ENGINEERING LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. G. Nataraj, Mr. Rahul Bhujbal,
Mr. Yash Raj, Mr. Nilesh Nayak
and Mr. Umar Shaikh, Advs.
Versus
LAXMAN D. NAGARE DBA SWARAJ ROOFING SOLUTIONS
& ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Naman Joshi and Ms. Priya
Goyal, Adv. for D-2
Mr. Arjun Aggarwal, Adv. for D-3
(Through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 17.07.2025
1. Vide the present plaint, the plaintiff seeks grant of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from infringing, passing off and
copyright of the trade mark of the plaintiff and consequential reliefs under
the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Although vide order dated 30.05.2025, this Court had referred the
parties to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement before the
Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (DHCMCC)
however, the pre-mediation report from the Delhi High Court Legal
Service Committee states that pre-mediation is a non-starter.
3. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
4. Issue summons of the suit.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant nos.2&3 appearing on advance
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 1 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
notice accept summons of the suit. They seek, and are granted, thirty days
to file their written statement(s). Written statement(s) be filed by the
defendants along with affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents of
the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on
record.
6. Replication(s) thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within a
period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of written statement(s). The
said replication(s), if any, shall be accompanied by with affidavit(s) of
admission/ denial of documents filed by the defendant nos.2&3, without
which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record within the aforesaid
period of fifteen days.
7. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the
remaining defendant no.1 through all permissible modes returnable before
the learned Joint Registrar on 28.10.2025.
8. The summons shall state that the written statement be filed by the
defendant no.1 within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt
of the summons. Written statement be filed by the defendant no.1 along
with affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents of the plaintiff,
without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
9. Replication thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within a period
of fifteen days from the date of receipt of written statement. The said
replication, if any, shall be accompanied by with affidavit(s) of admission/
denial of documents filed by the defendant no.1, without which the
replication shall not be taken on record within the aforesaid period of
fifteen days.
10. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any document(s), the
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 2 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
same shall be sought and given within the requisite timelines.
11. List before the learned Joint Registrar for marking exhibits of
documents on 28.10.2025. It is made clear that if any party unjustifiably
denies any document(s), then it would be liable to be burdened with costs.
I.A. 12768/2025 (Stay)
12. The plaintiff, vide the present application under Order XXXIX Rules
1 & 2 of the CPC, seeks grant of an ad interim injunction for infringement
of its trademarks against the defendants, as also other ancillary relief(s).
13. As per pleadings, the plaintiff is a company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at MB House, 51,
Chandroday Society, Stadium Road, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380 014,
Gujarat, India. Since the year 2001, the plaintiff is engaged in
manufacturing and sale of self-supported roofing, industrial roofing
sheets, toll plaza steel roofs, arch steel roofs, godown roofing sheets,
galvalume sheet roofing, and related products across India and has also
established a significant global presence.
14. The plaintiff conceived, coined and adopted the mark ‘PROFLEX’
and has been using it consistently since 01.11.2001. The plaintiff holds
three device mark registrations, being , , and has a
pending application for the word mark ‘PROFLEX’, all in Class 19. The
details of the aforesaid registrations are set out in paragraph 18 of the
plaint. The plaintiff also claims copyright ownership in the label .
15. To promote its products, the plaintiff has made significant efforts,
including operating a dedicated website http://mbproflex.com/index.html
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 3 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
since 2001, and leveraging third-party e-commerce platforms for
advertising and sales. As a result of extensive sales and promotion, the
‘PROFLEX’ marks of the plaintiff have acquired a formidable reputation
both nationally and internationally and have earned the huge profit
therefrom.
16. The defendant no.1, Mr. Laxman D. Nagare, is an individual based
in Bhosari, Maharashtra, who carries on business under the name and style
of Swaraj Roofing System and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of
roofing products under the mark “Proflex Roofing System” across India.
17. The defendant no.2 is an entity offering business listing and
promotional activities via its website www.indiamart.com with its
registered office located at 1st Floor, 29 Daryaganj, Netaji Subhash Marg,
Delhi-110 002. The defendant no.3 is another online business listing and
promotional services platform, operating through www.tradeindia.com
with its registered office is situated at A-86, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-
II, New Delhi-110 020.
18. As per learned counsel for the plaintiff, sometime in the early 2023,
the plaintiff became aware of defendant no.1’s use of the trademark
‘PROFLEX’, and accordingly the plaintiff issued a Cease and Desist
notice dated 18.12.2023. As the defendant no.1 failed to respond to the
said notice, the plaintiff issued a follow-up/ reminder notice dated
27.03.2024. In response to it, the defendant no.1 assured the plaintiff that
he would stop using the mark ‘PROFLEX’ immediately. However, despite
this assurance, the plaintiff discovered in April 2025 that defendant no.1
had resumed unauthorized use of the ‘PROFLEX’ mark through online
platforms of defendant nos.2 and 3, as well as through his own website
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 4 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
www.swarajroofing.in.
19. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant no.1’s
use of the mark PROFLEX as Proflex Roofing System, constitute an
infringement of plaintiff’s registered mark under Section 29(1), 29(2)(c)
read with Section 29(3), 29(6), 29(7), 29(8), and 29(9) of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999. In view thereof, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the
captioned suit wherein the present application has been filed.
20. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the plaintiff and have also gone through the pleadings as also
perused the documents on record.
21. Based on the above, a comparative table of the marks of the parties
involved are as under:-
Plaintiff's Trademarks Impugned Marks
PROFLEX Roofing System
22. The above reflects that the defendant no.1 has copied/ picked up the
prominent/ dominant part of the plaintiff’s mark i.e., the word
‘PROFLEX’ in entirety and has only added a suffix “Roofing System”.
The impugned mark is actually the same as it is contained as a part of the
trademark registrations subsisting in the name of the plaintiff. The solitary
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 5 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
change is that the impugned mark is a ‘word’ mark which is forming a part
of the ‘label’ trademark of the plaintiff. The same, in view of the
provisions of Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is
inconsequential, at least, at this stage.
23. Since the defendant no.1 is also dealing in roofing system like the
plaintiff, and that too through the same trade channels like the plaintiff
with a common customer base also like the plaintiff, it is not fathomable
that the defendant no.1 was unaware of the plaintiff and/ or its trademarks
who has been present in the market since 2001, it is highly unlikely that
the defendant no.1 was unaware of the plaintiff.
24. As such, there seems no valid reason for the defendant no.1 to have
adopted and commenced usage of the impugned marks but to give an
overall impression that they are in some manner connected with the
plaintiff to deceive the members of the general public and to merely ride
upon the goodwill and reputation attached with the plaintiff and the
trademarks belonging to it.
25. Also, the change(s), if at all, is so miniscule that it is sufficient to
give rise to a doubt in the minds of an average consumer to think that the
impugned mark is but a variant of the trademarks of the plaintiff. More so,
since the said plaintiff is the holder of more than one ‘PROFLEX’
trademarks in its name. Therefore, there are high degree of chances that
the unwary consumers are likely to be misled into believing that the
defendant no.1, their impugned marks and what is originating from them
is affiliated with the plaintiff.
26. Therefore, the plaintiff and its trademarks are liable to be granted
protection, more so, since it has been able to make out a prima facie case
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 6 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
in its favour for grant of an ad interim ex-parte injunction against the
defendant no.1. The balance of convenience is also titling in its favour.
The said injunction if not granted will lead to incalculable irreparable
harm, loss and injury to the plaintiff.
27. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid, till the next date of hearing:
i. the defendant no.1, including their partners, directors,
employees, agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all others acting on
their behalf, are restrained from selling, offering for sale, exporting,
advertising, marketing, or using-directly or indirectly-any products
related to Self Support Roofing Systems/Solutions, or any other
similar goods, with the mark “Proflex” or any trade dress that
closely resembles the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
ii. the defendant no.1, their partners, directors, employees,
agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all others acting on their behalf,
are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
exporting, advertising, marketing, or using-directly or indirectly-
any products related to Self Support Roofing Systems/Solutions or
similar goods, under the mark “Proflex” or any associated trade
dress that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered
trademarks and trade dress, constituting passing off and trade dress
violation.
iii. the defendant no.1, their partners, directors, employees,
agents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and all others acting on their behalf,
are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
exporting, advertising, marketing, or using-directly or indirectly-
any packaging, label, trade dress, or advertisement that is similar toCS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 7 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09
or a substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted
packaging, label, trade dress, or advertisement, constituting
copyright infringement.
28. Issue notice.
29. The learned counsel for the defendant nos.2&3 appearing on
advance notice accept notice. They seek and are granted four weeks to file
their replies. Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
30. Upon filing of process fee, issue notice to the remaining defendant
no.1 through all permissible modes, including through email, returnable
before the Court on 25.11.2025.
31. Reply be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed
within two weeks thereafter.
32. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendant nos.2 and 3 submit
that the appropriate links shall be taken down within a period of one week
as and when the relevant information qua them are supplied by the
plaintiff.
33. In relation thereof, learned counsel for the plaintiff, submits that the
relevant information qua the links shall be shared with the learned counsel
for the defendant nos.2 and 3 within a period of one week.
34. The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be complied
with within one week.
35. List before Court on 25.11.2025.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JULY 17, 2025/Ab
CS(COMM) 495/2025 Page 8 of 8
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 21/07/2025 at 22:24:09