Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee and Mr. Kunal Vats, Advocates v. UMANG IMPX ANR

Through: Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee and Mr. Kunal Vats, Advocates. versus UMANG IMPX & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Sanyat Lodha and Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Advocates for defendant no. 1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R 23.04.2025 Counsel for the defendants submits that an affidavit in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 24th March, 2025 has been filed yesterday.

1.1. However, the same is not on record.

1.2. Copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel for the plaintiff and has been handed over in Court.

1.3. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said affidavit are set out below: “8. I say that in addition to the above, the following measures were taken on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 to ensure full compliance with the above statements / undertakings: a. The Defendant No. 1 has already removed its listings with respect to ” on the IndiaMart, “REO Lites” / “ Amazon India and Justdial online portals and shall not be placing any ” or “ CS(COMM) 243/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 17:22:13 listings on the said IndiaMart, Amazon India and Justdial online portals with the use of “REO Lites” / “ ” or ” or any other mark / trade dress identical / deceptively “ similar to the trademark / name / trade dress of the Plaintiff viz. “REO” / “ ” or its derivatives / formatives in the future. b. The Defendant No. 1 had not made any profile and had not listed any products with respect “REO Lites”/“ ” ” on tradeindia online portal. However, out of “ abundant caution and for the sake of completeness the Defendant No. 1 has already written to tradeindia to take down any profile purporting to be that of the Defendant No. 1 or in any manner showing any listing of products on the IndiaMart online portal on behalf of Defendant No. 1 with the use of “REO Lites” / “ ” or any other mark / trade dress identical / deceptively similar to the the Plaintiff viz. “REO” / trademark / name / trade dress of ” or “ “ ” or its derivatives / formatives in the future. c. The Defendant No. 1 has already written to exportersindia to take down any profile purporting to be that of the Defendant No. 1, and to disable the listing of any such account purporting to be that of Defendant No. 1 or in any manner showing any listing of products on the IndiaMart online portal on behalf of Defendant No. 1 with the use of “REO Lites” / “ ” or any other mark / trade dress identical / deceptively similar to the trademark / ” or “ name / trade dress of the Plaintiff viz. “REO” / “ derivatives / formatives in the future. ” or its A true copy of the emails, snapshots and communications issued by the CS(COMM) 243/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 17:22:13 Defendant No. 1 to various online portals for takedown are annexed herewith and ANNEXURE – A (Colly.).

9. I say that in the event that the Plaintiff comes across any other listings of products purporting to be that of the Defendant No. 1 with the ” or any other use of “REO Lites” / “ mark / trade dress identical / deceptively similar to the trademark / name / ” or “ trade dress of the Plaintiff viz. “REO” / “ ” or its derivatives / formatives in the future, the Plaintiff may bring the same to the attention of the Defendant No. 1 and the Defendant No. 1 shall promptly make all reasonable efforts to facilitate the takedown of such content from the respective online portals.”

2. In view of the stand taken in the affidavit, counsel for the defendants submits that the suit may be decreed in favour of the plaintiff insofar as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned.

3. Since there is no contest to the present suit, a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clauses 75 (a) and 75 (b) is passed in favour of the plaintiff.

5. Counsel for the plaintiff does not press for the remaining reliefs. In view of the stand taken by the defendant no. 1 in paragraph 10 of the affidavit that defendant no. 2/ Sunny Singh is the former employee of defendant no. 1 and now has no connection with defendant no. 1, counsel for the plaintiff does not press for the any reliefs against the defendant no. 2.

7. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. Since the matter has been settled on the second date of hearing itself, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate of refund of 100% of the Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff, in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act,

1870. CS(COMM) 243/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 17:22:13

8. All pending applications stand disposed of. APRIL 23, 2025 AMIT BANSAL, J CS(COMM) 243/2025 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 25/04/2025 at 17:22:13