The Delhi High Court in the case Bolt Technology OU v. Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr observed that urgent interim relief including at ex-parte and ad-interim stage is extremely important in intellectual property rights cases as they not only involve the parties’ interest to the case but also the consumers of products and services in question.
The bench comprising of Justice Pratibha M Singh observed and has further added that such reliefs are granted by Courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights and also in order to avoid deception, confusion, unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketplace.
The Court added that the Intellectual property cases relate to a wide gamut of businesses such as – medicines, FMCG, food products, technology, financial services, creative works such as books, films, music, etc. Als, the recent trends point towards large scale misuse on the internet. In some cases, due to misuse of known brands and marks, the consumers are being duped into parting with large sums of money. Thus, on a daily basis the rights of the parties are affected as there is continuous manufacturing, selling, and offering of services or goods to the customers.
It is observed that the development ensued in a suit filed by Bolt Technology seeking permanent injunction against Ujoy Technology for allegedly using the identical mark ‘BOLT’ along with the logo, in relation with the identical business of provision of charging points for EVs. However, in an application filled on behalf of Bolt Technology seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation, in accordance with section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
It is noticed by the court that the Defendants were using an identical mark ‘BOLT’ in an identical colour scheme and also had made their mobile application available, both on Google Play and Apple App Store. Also, it is stated that the consumers and mobile users could download Bolt’s as well as Defendants’ mobile application, almost on a “minute-to-minute basis.
Also, the court noted that while Bolt suggested an amicable resolution of the dispute, the Defendants had termed the legal notice as a “frivolous notice.
The Court stated the Defendant also claimed that they were being “harassed without verification of facts”. Thus, the ultimate icing was that the demand of compensation of Rs.5 crores, along with legal costs of Rs.75,000/- from the Plaintiff.
Further, the court added that a perusal of the correspondence, extracted hereinabove, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the Defendants were in no way interested in an amicable resolution of the dispute. Instead of which, the hand of mediation which was lent by the Plaintiff was met with a tight slap. Therefore, the conduct of defendant is clearly not in the spirit of any amicable resolution – let alone mediation. Thus, the requirement of Section 12A of the CCA duly stands satisfied on both counts.
It was observed that while the court was yet to consider the application seeking interim injunction on merits, however, noting the Defendants stand of being willing to explore an amicable resolution of the dispute, the case was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Accordingly, the court directed that Senior Advocate, Mr. Sudhanshu Batra is appointed as the ld. Mediator. Parties are to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre either physically or virtually, subject to convenience of all concerned. However, it shall be ensured that competent officials on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be present in the mediation proceedings.
On September 12, the court listed the matter for reporting the outcome of mediation or for hearing of the application seeking urgent relief.
