This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discovered that a director of Xero Energy had incorporated respondent No. 2, Aeronaut Fans Industry Pvt. Ltd., which was manufacturing and selling identical fans under a deceptively similar name. After terminating the dealership in October 2022 and sending a cease-and-desist notice in December 2022, the appellant’s technical expert confirmed the infringement in February 2024. The appellant subsequently filed a commercial suit for patent and design infringement in June 2024, along with an application for an interim injunction and an exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, citing urgency. The respondents sought rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with the mandatory mediation requirement. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court rejected the plaint, holding that the delay between discovering the infringement and filing the suit demonstrated a lack of genuine urgency. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the filing of Commercial Suit No. 13 of 2024 by the appellant before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, seeking relief for patent and design infringement along with an application for interim injunction. The respondents filed applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking return and rejection of the plaint primarily for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. On 28.08.2024, the learned Single Judge rejected the application for return of plaint but allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11, rejecting the plaint for lack of proven urgency. The appellant’s appeal (Commercial Appeal No. 1 of 2024) was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 13.11.2024, which upheld the Single Judge’s order. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the SLP, the Supreme Court, by an order dated 07.02.2025, directed the parties to undergo mediation, which ultimately failed on 23.06.2025. The Supreme Court then proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.
READ ALSO:From Paper Rights to Real Rights: Supreme Court Orders Sweeping Reforms for Transgender Community
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. It held that in cases of continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, the urgency for interim relief must be assessed from the plaintiff’s standpoint based on the plaint and annexed documents, not on the merits of the injunction or the time elapsed since discovering the infringement. The Court emphasized that each act of ongoing infringement constitutes a fresh cause of action, causing immediate and irreparable harm to business reputation and market position. Therefore, mere delay in filing the suit does not negate inherent urgency in such actions, as the peril persists. Public interest in preventing consumer deception and market confusion further reinforces the need for urgent interim relief, and a prayer for injunction in such circumstances cannot be dismissed as a mere ploy to bypass mediation.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the High Court, and restored the commercial suit for adjudication on merits. The Court held that the suit, alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, did contemplate urgent interim relief under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It ruled that the ongoing nature of the infringement inherently creates urgency due to the immediate and irreparable harm caused, and mere delay in filing the suit does not negate this urgency when the wrongful acts persist. Consequently, the rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with pre-institution mediation was set aside.
Case Details:
Case Title:Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. & Anr. Citation: (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2753 of 2025) Appeal Number: (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2753 of 2025) Date of Judgment:October 27, 2025 Judges/Justice Name:Justice Alok Aradhe & Justice Sanjay Kumar