15/10/2026
Trademark Dispute:
MAULESH DAYABHAI UKANI & ANR. v. NEESH PERFUMES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
⚖️ Delhi High Court Orders Local Commissioner in Trademark Infringement Suit
# # 🏛️ Case Details
**Court:** High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Case No.:** CS(COMM) 1013/2026
**Presiding Judge:** Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
**Date of Order:** 16 September 2026
**Plaintiffs:** Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani & Anr.
**Defendants:** Neesh Perfumes Private Limited & Anr.
# # ⚖️ 📌 Background of the Dispute
The Delhi High Court considered an application for interim relief in a commercial intellectual property suit instituted by Maulesh Dayabhai Ukani and another against Neesh Perfumes Private Limited and another.
The plaintiffs’ case, as set out in the plaint, concerns their commercial activities and intellectual property rights associated with their products, including perfumes and deodorants. The pleadings refer to the plaintiffs’ **SIGNATURE trademarks** and their efforts to establish and promote their products through online marketplaces, including Amazon and Flipkart.
The plaintiffs asserted that they had invested considerable effort, skill and capital in developing and popularising their trademarks and commercial presence.
The suit seeks judicial intervention in relation to the alleged infringement of the plaintiffs’ rights. However, the allegations in the plaint must be distinguished from findings ultimately established by the Court.
# # 🔍 ⚖️ Core Legal Issues
The principal issues raised by the proceedings include:
**1. Trademark infringement:** Whether the defendants’ alleged activities violate the plaintiffs’ asserted trademark rights.
**2. Protection of brand identity:** Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to protection against the alleged unauthorised use of their trademarks in connection with commercial products.
**3. Interim injunctive relief:** Whether the circumstances justify urgent interim protection pending adjudication of the dispute.
**4. Preservation of evidence:** Whether a court-appointed Local Commissioner should inspect the relevant premises and document material evidence connected with the allegations.
These are issues arising from the suit and the applications before the Court. The order dated 16 September 2026 should not be interpreted as a final determination of trademark infringement or liability.
# # 🏛️ 📍 Proceedings Before the Delhi High Court
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an *ex parte ad interim injunction* under Order ###IX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court issued notice to the defendants, directing that the matter be placed before the Court on 22 January 2027.
The Court also granted the plaintiffs exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, having regard to the request for urgent relief and the legal principles referred to in the order.
The suit was registered as a commercial suit, and directions were issued concerning service of summons, filing of written statements, subsequent replication and admission or denial of documents.
# # 🔎 📋 Appointment of a Local Commissioner
An important procedural aspect of the order is the Court’s direction concerning a Local Commissioner.
The order provides for the Local Commissioner’s report to be filed within two weeks of ex*****on of the commission. The Registry was directed to be informed of the ex*****on of the commission and filing of the report before summons would be issued to the defendants.
The Court also specified that the order would not be uploaded on the Court’s website until the commission had been executed by the Local Commissioner.
Such directions are significant in commercial intellectual property litigation because a commission may assist in documenting relevant facts and preserving evidence. Nevertheless, the appointment of a Local Commissioner does not, by itself, establish that infringement has occurred.
# # # 🚨 ⚖️ Interim Injunction Granted Against the Defendants
One of the most significant directions in the order is the grant of interim protection to the plaintiffs.
The Court restrained the defendants and persons acting on their behalf, until the next date of hearing, from using, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, offering for sale, selling, exporting, importing, retailing, wholesaling, warehousing or displaying perfumes, deodorants or related goods under the impugned trademark SIGNATURE SCENT, or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered SIGNATURE trademark and its variants, where such use would amount to trademark infringement and/or passing off.
The restraint is an interim measure and remains subject to further proceedings before the Court.
# # # 🔍 📦 Local Commission and Inspection of the Defendants’ Premises
The Court allowed the plaintiffs’ application for appointment of a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection at the premises of Neesh Perfumes Private Limited at Plot No. 31, HSIIDC Industrial Estate, Jagadhari Road, Ambala, Haryana – 133006.
The Local Commissioner was authorised to:
* Inspect the premises and prepare an inventory of allegedly infringing goods.
* Seize and take into custody goods bearing the plaintiffs’ SIGNATURE mark, including relevant promotional and marketing materials.
* Inspect and seize books of accounts, ledgers and stock registers relating to the sale of the allegedly infringing goods.
* Seek police assistance if obstruction occurred during ex*****on of the commission.
The order further provided for the seized material to be handed over to the defendants on superdari, subject to an undertaking that the material would be produced before the Court whenever required.
The Local Commissioner was directed to submit the report within two weeks of ex*****on of the commission.
# # # 🏛️ 📌 Outcome of the Proceedings
The order dated 16 September 2026 records the following important outcomes:
* Interim injunction: The defendants were restrained from dealing in the specified goods under SIGNATURE SCENT or identical or deceptively similar marks, subject to the terms of the order, until the next hearing.
* Local Commissioner appointed: The inspection and evidence-preservation application was allowed.
* Pre-institution mediation: The plaintiffs received exemption under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
* Further proceedings: The suit remains pending, with the matter listed for further consideration and the defendants to be served in accordance with the Court’s directions.
The Court’s order is an interim procedural and injunctive order, not a final judgment conclusively determining the parties’ rights or the ultimate merits of the infringement and passing-off claims.
# # # 💡 ⚖️ Legal Takeaway
This case illustrates the importance of timely interim relief and evidence preservation in trademark infringement litigation. Where a plaintiff seeks urgent protection against alleged use of a deceptively similar mark, an interim injunction may restrict the disputed commercial activity while a Local Commissioner assists in documenting relevant goods and records.
However, the grant of interim relief must not be confused with a final adjudication on infringement. The ultimate determination remains subject to the subsequent proceedings and the evidence placed before the Court.
⚠️ Disclaimer: This post is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on the author's understanding of the judgment. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, it may contain inadvertent errors or omissions. Readers are advised to refer to the official judgment and seek independent legal advice before relying on any information contained herein. The views expressed are personal and should not be construed as legal advice.
✍️ Nihar Ranjan Nayak Trademark Attorney
