Bolt Technology OU vs. Ujoy Technology Private Limited and Ors. (29.08.2022 – DELHC) : MANU/DE/3151/2022;
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Case Note:
๐Ÿ‘‰๐Ÿป The Honโ€™ble High Court of Delhi while adjudicating upon an application filed on behalf of Bolt Technology seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation, has held that pre-litigation mediation is not mandatory in Intellectual Property cases wherein urgent interim relief has been sought.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐Ÿป The present suit was instituted by Bolt Technology (hereinafter the โ€œPlaintiffโ€) seeking permanent injunction against Ujoy Technology (hereinafter the โ€œDefendantโ€) for allegedly using the identical mark ‘BOLT’ along with the logo, in relation to an identical business of charging points for electric vehicles.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸปThe Plaintiff further filed an application seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation, in accordance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐Ÿป The Court, while recognizing the nature of dispute and the urgency of relief observed that โ€œas per the experience seen in intellectual property cases, the relief of interim injunction, including at the ex-parte stage and ad-interim stage, is extremely important.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸปSuch matters do not merely involve the interest of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, which are the contesting parties before the Court, but also involve the interest of the customers/consumers of products and services in question.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸปIntellectual property cases relate to a wide gamut of businesses such as – medicines, FMCG, food products, financial services, technology, creative works such as books, films, music, etc. Recent trends also point towards large scale misuse on the internet.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸปIn some cases, due to misuse of known marks and brands, the consumers are being duped into parting with large sums of money. The rights of the parties are affected almost on a daily basis as there is continuous manufacturing, selling, and offering of services or goods to the customers.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐Ÿป The ambit of urgent interim relief that may be required to be granted is extremely varied and depends on the facts of each case. Such reliefs are usually granted by Courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights, but also in order to avoid confusion, deception, unfair and fraudulent practices, etc., in the marketplaceโ€.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐Ÿป The Court also held that it was evident from the conduct of the Defendant that it was in no way interested in an amicable resolution of the dispute. Instead, the hand of mediation which was lent by the Plaintiff was met with a tight slap.

๐Ÿ‘‰๐ŸปThus, the Defendant cannot place reliance on Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, when its own conduct was in fact not in the spirit of any amicable resolution.

Disclaimer

This website has been designed only for the purposes of dissemination of basic information on ADROIT; information which is otherwise available on the internet, various public platforms and social media. Careful attention has been given to ensure that the information provided herein is accurate and up-to-date.

This website is not an attempt to advertise or solicit clients and does not seek to create or invite any lawyer-client relationship. The links provided on this website are to facilitate access to basic information on ADROIT, and, to share the various thought leadership initiatives undertaken by it. The content herein or on such links should not be construed as a legal reference or legal advice. Readers are advised not to act on any information contained herein or on the links and should refer to legal counsels and experts in their respective jurisdictions for further information and to determine its impact.

Terms of use andย Privacyย policy