Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 31-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – M/s Mangal Marketing A Partnership firm, represented by Partner Mr. Nitin M. Jain; Respondent – M/s Mangal and Mangal A Registered Partnership Firm, represented by Managing Partner Mr. P. Mookan.
  • Nature: Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC to reject the plaint (C.S.(Comm.) No.52 of 2026) on the ground that it is barred by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
  • Background: Respondent filed a trademark infringement suit in February 2026 after issuing a cease‑and‑desist notice on 17‑Oct‑2025. Applicant argues the suit is barred because Section 12A was not complied with and no urgent interim relief was granted.
  • Counsel arguments: Applicant’s counsel (Mr. M.S. Bharath) relied on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) SCC 815, asserting that camouflaging urgent relief to avoid Section 12A is a ground for dismissal. Respondent’s counsel (Mr. A. Jayesh Kumar Daga) relied on SLP (Civil) No.2753 of 2025 (27‑Oct‑2025), contending that continuous infringement creates urgency and Section 12A may be exempted.
  • Judicial observations: The Court noted the continuous nature of the alleged infringement, the existence of a cease‑and‑desist notice, and the plaintiff’s claim of urgent interim relief. It considered the Apex Court judgments cited by both sides and found the respondent’s position on continuous infringement persuasive.

Final Outcome

  • The application to reject the plaint under Section 12A is dismissed. No order as to costs is made. The plaintiff’s trademark infringement suit will proceed.

Topics: Trademark Infringement, Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act