Pre-litigation mediation not compulsory in Intellectual Property suits seeking urgent interim reliefs: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that pre-litigation mediation is not compulsory in Intellectual Property (IP) suits seeking urgent interim reliefs [Bolt Technology OU v Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr]..Justice Prathiba M Singh held thus while observing that in IP cases, the relief of interim injunction, including at the ex-parte stage and ad-interim stage, is extremely important since such cases involve not only the interest of the plaintiffs and the defendants but also the interest of the customers/consumers of the products and services in question.The Court said that the ambit of urgent relief that may be required to be granted is extremely varied and depends on facts and circumstances of each case..Such reliefs are usually granted by courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights, but also in order to avoid confusion, deception, unfair and fraudulent practices in the marketplace, the judge said..Justice Singh was dealing with a trademark infringement, copyright and unfair competition suit by an Estonia based company named Bolt Technology OÜ.It was argued that Bolt is a global market leader in transportation and mobility services that include vehicles for hire, micro mobility, car-sharing, electric vehicle charging stations/docks and various food and grocery delivery services.Bolt alleged that an Indian-based firm is using the identical mark ‘BOLT’ with an identical colour scheme for the business of electric vehicle charging points, which is similar to one of the services provided by them..A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel appearing for the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.The counsel argued that the Supreme Court had on August 17 this year held in Patil Automation Private Limited & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, has held that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory and that no suit can be entertained if pre-litigation mediation has not been resorted to. It was also stated that in September 2021 a single-judge of the Delhi High Court had rejected an application seeking exemption under Section 12A of the CCA in ECL Finance Ltd. v. Tashee Nirman Pct. Ltd. and Ors by relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in Ganga Taro Vazirani v. Deepak Raheja..However, Justice Singh noted that the apex court in Patil Automation, had clearly observed that the judgment does not bring within its net, suits in which urgent interim reliefs are sought.She further said that a division bench of the Bombay High Court in Deepak Raheja case, as it went in appeal, had held that Section 12A does not come into play if the suit contemplates an urgent relief..Therefore, the judge rejected the preliminary objection raised by the defendants and held that suit is maintainable. It also directed the defendants to pay a cost of ₹10,000 to the plaintiff..The Court then proceeded to refer the matter to mediation under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and appointed Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Batra as mediator.“Parties to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre either virtually or physically, subject to convenience of all concerned. It shall be ensured that competent officials on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be present in the mediation proceedings… if the matter is not resolved amicably, within one week, the application seeking urgent interim relief would be considered, on the next date of hearing,” the judge ordered..Advocates Swathi Sukumar, Essenese Obhan, Taarika Pillai, Mehak Dhingra, Himangi Kapoor, Ayesha Guhathakurta, Ritik Raghuvanshi and Naveen Nagarjuna appeared for plaintiffs.Advocates Naman Maheshwari and Garv Malhotra appeared for the defendants..[Read Order]