Mr. Abhay Tandon and Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Pramod Kumar,Advocates v. M/S STEEL INDIA ORS

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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 2 of 142013 is a market leader in the construction space for more than three [3] decades which offers lightweight, high-performance solutions for false ceiling, drywall partitions and gypsum plastering solutions. Plaintiff No. 2 is the exclusive manufacturer and marketer of Plaintiff No. 1 patented product, which is the subject matter of the present suit. Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 are hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Plaintiffs’. 2.3.The Plaintiffs are part of the Saint-Gobain group of companies since 2005. Saint-Gobain is collectively the world leader in the habitat and construction markets, designing, transport industry, manufacturing and distributing performance building materials. 2.4.The Suit Patent IN’062 relates to a corrugated construction element having improved screw retention, stiffness, and load bearing capacity. The Suit Patent IN’978 relates to an apparatus and method for making the said construction element from a sheet material comprising an array of angular corrugations. The bibliographic details of the Suit Patents are provided at paragraph no. 16 of the plaint. 2.5.It is stated that the inventors of the Suit Patents have assigned their rights in favour of Plaintiff No. 1. It is stated that Form-1 dated 23.05.2017 and 27.06.2019 have been filed in the patent office recording Plaintiff No. 1 as the patentee. It is submitted that all the Intellectual Property [‘IP’] generated by the employees of Plaintiff No. 2 accrue to the ownership of Plaintiff No. 1 by virtue of its internal arrangement. 2.6.It is stated that the grant of the Suit Patents i.e., IN’062 and IN’978were 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 3 of 14recorded by the learned Controller on 14.11.2019 and 25.08.2020, respectively and the same were published in the Official Journal of the Patent Office on 22.11.2019 and 28.08.2020, respectively.It is stated that there has be no challenge to the Suit Patents as on the date of the filing of the present suit. 2.7.Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered licensee of the Suit Patents. Plaintiff No. 1’s patented product are manufactured and marketed by Plaintiff No. 2 in India vide License Agreement dated 09.11.2022. 2.8.The patented product, metal profile i.e., the subject matter of the Suit Patents IN’062 and IN’978, is a pioneer patented technology for metal framing system for drywalls and ceilings. The said product was commercialised in India in the year 2017 and is sold under the brand GypSerra® in India. The sales figures of the said product for the years 2019 to 2024 are provided at paragraph no. 31 of the plaint. Knowledge about the Defendants 3.The Defendants are engaged in the business of wholesale trading and retail of ceiling frames and building materials. 3.1.Defendant No. 1[i.e., M/S Steel India] is advertising and offering for sale/supply infringing metal profiles in violation of Plaintiff No. 1’s Suit Patents [IN’062 and IN’978].The photograph of Defendant No. 1’s infringing metal profiles is reproduced at paragraph no. 38 of the plaint. 3.2.Upon further enquiry, Plaintiff No. 2 came across Defendant No.1’s sample kit, containing different samples of Defendant No.1’s infringing metal profiles and upon checking the same, Plaintiff No. 2 found that Defendant No. 1 has blatantly copied the innovative and patented product of the Plaintiffs and is rigorously advertising and offering for sale/supply the infringing metal 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 4 of 14profiles under the brand ‘GypLexra’ on its sample kit for the purpose of economic commercial gains.Defendant No.1 has also obtained design registration for one of the infringing metal profiles. 3.3.The investigator engaged by Plaintiff No. 2 in its investigation report dated 26.08.2024 has confirmed the following: - a.Defendant No. 1 is trading under the name of Defendant No. 2/ [i.e., M/s Gypsum and Metal World]. Defendant No. 1has manufactured and stockpiled a considerable volume of the infringing metal profiles at its office-cum-warehouse, as mentioned in the memo of parties, and continues to commercially manufacture and directly supply the same to customers on receipt of purchase orders. b.Defendant No. 1 offers and directly sells/supplies the infringing metal profiles pan-India subject to payment of transportation costs. c.Defendant No. 3 [i.e., Ashok Gypsum] is a verified supplier of Defendant No. 1 and is selling and offering for sale/supply the infringing metal profiles through Indiamart (https://m.indiamart.com/ashok-gypsum/) and the same are also available for sale/supply in Delhi & NCR region. The screenshots taken from Indiamart’s website are reproduced at paragraph no. 39 of the plaint. 3.4.It is stated that the infringing metal profiles, as received from the investigator were sent by the Plaintiffs to Plaintiff No. 2’s in-house Research and Development team for technical analysis. A test report dated 27.08.2024received from Plaintiff No. 2’s R&D Centre confirmed that Defendant No. 1’s metal profiles are infringing the Suit Patent IN’062. 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 5 of 143.5.It is stated that an affidavit dated 29.08.2024 of Mr. S. Giriraj Kumar, techno-legal expert and constituted attorney, confirming the act of infringement of Suit Patents IN’062 and IN’978 committed by the Defendants has also been placed on record. 3.6.It is stated that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are regular customers of Plaintiff No. 2 of products other than the metal frames (Plaster Boards). Therefore, the Defendants are fully aware of the Plaintiffs market presence as well as their product portfolio including the patented metal profiles. 3.7.Despite such knowledge, the infringing metal profiles of the Defendants are readily available in retail markets and are being supplied by the Defendants to third-parties as well. 4.Aggrieved by the aforesaid acts of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs have filed the captioned suit. Submission on behalf of the Plaintiffs 5.Mr. Abhay Tandon, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs state that manufacture, sale, supply, use, and offer for sale/supply of the infringing metal profiles is in violation of Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 and amounts to infringement under the said provision. 5.1.He states that this Court has already granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction vide order dated 04.09.2024 in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. 5.2.He states the vide the said order, the Court had also appointed three [3] local commissioners to visit the Defendants’ premises. He states that the respective reports of the all the local commissioners are on record and the same proves the case of the Plaintiffs. 5.3.He states that as per the inventory sheet of the Local Commissioners, 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 6 of 14the Local Commissioners have seized approximately 40,462 nos. of infringing metal profiles amounting to approximately Rs. 48,87,186/- [Rupees Forty-Eight Lakh, Eighty-Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Eighty-Six Only] and 22 pieces of infringing rollers from the Defendants’ premises. In this regard he relies upon the product-wise calculation sheet annexed as Annexure-1 with the Plaintiff’s written submissions dated 01.12.2025. 5.4.He states even though the Defendants have purportedly filed the written statement within the period of 120 days; however, the same has not been brought on record and is lying in defects with the registry. He states that till date the Defendants have not initiated any step to clear the defects and bring the written statement on record. 5.5.He states the multiple mediation sessions have been conducted before the Delhi High Court Conciliation and Mediation Centre [‘Mediation Centre’] during the period between 11.07.2025 to 04.08.2025; the mediation proceedings were closed as a non-starter due to the Defendant’s unwillingness to participate. 5.6.He states that since the Defendants were not appearing, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.11.2025. 5.7.He states that in order to bring the litigation to an end, the Plaintiffs are willing to forego their claim for damages and prays that the present suit be decreed granting following reliefs to the Plaintiffs; - (i)a decree of permanent injunction; (ii)payment of costs towards fees of the Local Commissioners; and (iii)destruction/scrapping of all seized infringing goods and modification of dye the infringing rollers, as granted by this 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 7 of 14Court in the Order dated 06.02.2024 passed in CS(COMM) 62/2024 titled Saint-Gobain Placo and Another v. Pooja Industries.Findings and Analysis 6.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record. 7.It is a matter of record that on 05.12.2024, the Defendants entered appearance and submitted that the written statement filed by them is under objection. However, written statement was marked defective by the registry and the Defendants have not taken any steps to bring the pleading on record and therefore there is no pleading on behalf of Defendants before this Court. 8.The parties were referred to mediation and Defendants along with their counsel participated in the mediation hearings held on several dates in July and August, 2025. However, the mediation was not fruitful and the matter was thereafter the matter was listed before this Court on 17.09.2025. 9.The Defendants have also elected not to appear before this Court on several dates since 17.09.2025 leading to this Court passing an order on 21.11.2025 proceeding ex parte against them. 10.The plaint has been duly verified and is supported by the affidavit(s) of the Plaintiffs as well the Statement of Truth. Since, the written statement filed by the Defendants has not been brought on record and therefore, all the averments made in the plaint against the Defendantsasserting infringement of the Plaintiffs’ Suit Patents remained unrebutted and are deemed to be admitted. Furthermore, the Defendant’s affidavit of admission/denial of the documents filed by the Plaintiffs is not on record. Accordingly, the 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 8 of 14documents filed by the Plaintiffs are deemed to have been admitted by the defendants as per Rule 4 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. 11.In these facts, this Court proceeds to examine the averments made in the plaint and the evidence that has come on record in pursuance to the local commission(s) executed at the premises of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in pursuance of the order dated 04.09.2024, to assess whether a decree of permanent injunction as prayed for should be granted against the Defendants. 12.The Court vide interim order dated 04.09.2025 after recording its prima facie opinion qua infringement of the Suit Patents vis-à-vis the Defendant No. 1’s infringing metal profiles granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants. The Court also appointed three [3] Local Commissioners [‘LCs’] to visit the premises of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for inspection and seizure of infringing products. 13.All the local commissions were conducted on 10.09.2024. Subsequently, report dated 10.09.2024 was filed by the LC quaDefendant No. 2 and report(s) dated 23.09.2024 was filed by the respective LCsquaDefendant Nos.2 and3, which disclose the following facts: - 13.1.There were three [3] assembling lines for manufacturing of the alleged infringed material at Defendant No. 1’s premises.The rollers of the assembly lines were seized, as they looked similar to the infringed materials.Infringing products branded as ‘GypLexra’ manufactured by Defendant No. 1 were present in huge numbers at Defendant No. 1’s premises. The infringing products were seized and inventoried by the LC and were subsequentlyreleased on superdarito Mrs. Geeta Devi, proprietor of Defendant No.1. 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 9 of 1413.2.Infringing material found at the premises of Defendant No. 2 was counted, seized, sealed and inventoried by the LC. Upon enquiry, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, proprietor of Defendant No. 2 informed the rates of the infringing material and also informed that the infringing material is purchased from Defendant No. 1. The infringing material was released on superdari to Mr. Sanjay Kumar. 13.3.Infringing products branded as ‘GypLexra’ manufactured by Defendant No. 1 were found at the premises of Defendant No. 3. The said products were seizedand inventoried by the LC and were subsequentlyreleased on superdarito Mr. Danga Ram, representative of Defendant No. 3. 14.None of the Defendants have filed any objections to the aforesaid local commission reports. At this stage it would be apposite to refer to the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court inAero Club v. M/s Sahara Belts1, wherein the Court held that in cases wherein report filed by the Local Commissioner has not been challenged by any party, the said report can be treated as evidence in the suit. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is as under: - “19. On the aspect of damages, the Court has perused the record and the Local Commissioner’s report. It is also the settled position in law that the Local Commissioner’s report can be read in evidence in terms of the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10 (2) CPC, 1908 where it is not challenged by any party. … 20. In view of Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC, 1908 and the judgment discussed above, the settled legal position that emerges is that the report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit where it is not challenged by any party. In the present case, the 12023:DHC:8423 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 10 of 14photographs of the counterfeit products which are placed on record and the inventory which has been prepared, is also not denied by the Defendant either in the pleadings or in its reply. Accordingly, the report of the Local Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied upon by the Court as evidence to assess the damages, as the same stands unchallenged.” [Emphasis Supplied] 15.The LCs in their respective reports have placed on record the facts that prove that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were dealing in infringing products amounting to violation of the statutory rights of the Plaintiffs. Since, the said Defendants have not filed any objections to the reports filed by the LCs, the said reports form part of the unrebutted evidence available on record to decide the assertions in the plaint. 16.The averments made in the plaint and documents filed on record shows that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the Suit Patents i.e., Indian Patent No. 325062 and Indian Patent No. 344978.The Suit Patents are valid and subsisting till date. 17.It is stated in the plaint that Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are dealing in and offering the infringing products for sale. The role of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3in selling the infringing products already stands established by the local commission reports. 18.The predecessor Bench of this Court after perusing averments made in the plaint and the documents placed on record [specifically, the claim mapping done by techno-legal expert Mr. S. Giriraj Kumar] returned a prime facie finding that the products of the Defendants are copy of the products of the Plaintiffs and thus, granted interim injunction against the Defendants vide order dated 04.09.2024. 19.The failure of the Defendants to appear before this Court on 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 11 of 1417.09.2025, 22.09.2025, 21.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 demonstrates disregard for the judicial process and conscious abandonment of defence, if any. 20.This Court finds no ground or material to take a view different from the prima facie view expressed in the injunction order dated 04.09.2024 with respect to the infringement of the Suit Patents by the infringing products sold under the brand ‘GypLexra’. This Court is also of the opinion that if the Defendants are permitted to trade the impugned products, which infringes the Suit Patents of the Plaintiffs, it would inevitably cause loss and injury to the Plaintiffs. Moreover, theaforesaid illegal action of the said Defendants constitutes a clear violation of the statutory rights of the Plaintiffs in relation to its Suit Patents. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of a decree of permanent injunction. 21.Thus, the Plaintiffs are held entitled to relief of permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants in terms of paragraph no. 67(a) of the plaint. The interim injunction dated 04.09.2024shall merge into the decree. 22.Mr. Abhay Tandon,learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that the Plaintiffs are not pressing the reliefs of disclosure of stock, rendition of accounts, and damages, sought vis-à-vis prayer clauses mentioned at paragraph no. 67(b), (c), and (d)of the plaint. The said statement of the Plaintiffs is taken on record and the prayer clauses mentioned at paragraph no. 67(b), (c), and (d)of the plaint are disposed of as not pressed. Relief of Legal Costs 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 12 of 1423.Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submit that however, the Plaintiffs have suffered substantial litigation costs while contesting the present suit and despite issuance of summons and interim restraining directions passed against the Defendants; the said Defendants’ conduct has been negligentbefore this Court. He states that in these circumstances, the Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation of legal costs by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to the extent of the actual costs paid to the Local Commissioners. 24.Insofar as the reliefs of costs sought in prayer clauses mentioned at paragraph no. 67(f) of the plaint qua the legal costs of the suit are concerned, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd. v. State of T.N.2. wherein the Supreme Court has set forth the principles to be considered by Courts while granting relief of costs in commercial litigation. Even though the proceedings in the said matter had arisen from a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the nature of the proceeding therein was a commercial dispute. 25.Applying the aforenoted principles set forth by the Supreme Court inUflex Ltd. v. State of T.N.[supra] as well as having perused the averments in the plaint, the findings returned by the LCs in their respective reports and the conduct of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, this Court is satisfied that the actions of the said Defendants’ in selling the infringing goods bearing the mark ‘GypLexra’ are not bonafide and invites award of costs. 26.Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are held entitled to actual costs [which was incurred by the Plaintiffs towards fees of the Local Commissioners] amounting to Rs.6 lakhs [Six lakhs], to be paid by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in equal proportion, within a period of four [4] weeks, failing which Defendants 2(2022) 1 SCC 165 [Paragraph Nos. 53 to 59] 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 13 of 14will be liable to pay interest at 15% p.a. on this amount. Relief of Destruction/Scrapping of all seized infringing goods and modification of dye of the infringing rollers 27.Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs further submits that substantial volume of the infringing material was found at the premises of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, the details of which are provided in Annexure-1, annexed with the Plaintiffs written submission dated 01.12.2025. He prays that the since the said infringing material was released to the respective Defendant on superdari, this Court be pleased to grant relief of delivery up as sought in the prayer clause mentioned at paragraph no. 67(e) of the plaint and pass a direction directing the Defendants to destroy/scrap the same in the presence of the Plaintiffs’ representative including one attorney. He states that this Court vide Order dated 06.02.2024 passed in CS(COMM) 62/2024 titled Saint-Gobain Placo and Another v. Pooja Industries [wherein the subject matter was similar i.e., the Suit Patents herein] had issued directions qua scrapping of the infringing goods and modification of the dye of the infringing rollers. He prays that similar directions be passed in this case as well. 28.This Court finds merit in the submission of the Plaintiffs. As directed hereinabove, Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have already been restrained from dealing in any manner in the infringing materials; therefore, no purpose would be served if the Defendants are allowed to retain the infringing material [which was released to them on superdari]. Accordingly, it is directed that the all the infringing goods lying seized at the premises of the Defendants be destroyed and/or scrapped in the presence of the Plaintiffs’ representative including an advocate, within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 29.It is further directed that the dye of the infringing rollers used by the 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 26/12/2025 at 11:52:41 CS(COMM) 755/2024 Page 14 of 14Defendants shall also be modified to ensure that the products manufactured in future do not infringe the Suit Patents. 30.With the aforesaid directions, this suit along with pending applications (if any) stands decreed vis-à-vis the prayer clausesmentioned at paragraph no. 67(a), (e), and (f)of the plaint for permanent injunction quaDefendant Nos. 1 to 3 in terms of this order. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3jointly or severally are held liable to pay legal costs of Rs. 6 lakhs to the Plaintiffs. 31.Let the decree sheet be drawn up in terms of this order. 32.With the aforesaid directions, this suit along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 33.The Plaintiffs are directed to provide a copy of the decree to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through e-mail and speed post for information and compliance, within two (2) weeks. In addition, through the counsel who entered appearance for the said Defendants. 34.The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant. MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JDECEMBER 23, 2025/mt/FV/MG