When a decree has been granted to the plaintiff in a lawsuit pertaining to
trademark infringement, one might assume that the matter has been resolved
definitively. However, what if the defendants persist in manufacturing and
selling infringing products even after the decree?
This is a situation where the decree holder seeks a remedy through the
initiation of execution proceedings. But, how can an instantaneous remedy be
imposed to curtail the infringing activities of the judgment debtor? The answer
lies in the appointment of a Local Commissioner in an execution proceeding, as
highlighted by a significant ruling from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
The Case at Hand:
In a case that came before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the judgment debtor
continued to sell infringing products even after a decree had been issued in
favor of the plaintiff. In response, the judgment holder filed an application
under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking the
appointment of a Local Commissioner during the execution proceeding. The primary
purpose of this appointment was to seize the infringing products in possession
of the judgment debtor. However, the Trial Court rejected this application,
leading to challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi through a Civil
Miscellaneous Main Petition.
Applicability of Order XXVI Rule 18A CPC:
"The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its deliberations, invoked Order XXVI Rule
18A of the CPC to underscore that the provisions of Order XXVI are not limited
to the main suit but extend to execution proceedings as well. This
interpretation lays the foundation for utilizing the mechanism of a Local
Commissioner in the execution phase to achieve a swifter resolution of issues
pertaining to the enforcement of court orders."
Significance of Appointing a Local Commissioner in Execution Proceedings:
In the context of execution proceedings following a decree in trademark
infringement cases, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi highlighted the critical
role played by a Local Commissioner. The importance of this appointment can be
analyzed from two key perspectives.
Crucial Role in Trademark Infringement Matters:
- Ensuring Thorough Investigation:
One primary function of a Local Commissioner is to guarantee a comprehensive
investigation into the activities of the defendant. This is particularly
relevant in cases of trademark infringement, where the depth of the inquiry is
essential to establish the extent of the violation. The Local Commissioner's
involvement ensures that the court possesses a complete understanding of the
- Effective Enforcement of Court Orders:
Secondly, the appointment of a Local Commissioner serves as a mechanism to
enforce court orders effectively. It provides a structured process to report and
address any violations promptly. In cases where monetary damages might be a
component of the final judgment, the presence of a Local Commissioner becomes
even more crucial. The commissioner's involvement ensures that the court can
efficiently handle issues related to damages, if warranted, in a systematic and
In trademark infringement cases, the significance of appointing a Local
Commissioner becomes particularly evident. If Local Commissioners are not
appointed in execution petitions, especially when continuous violations of the
judgment or decree occur, the effectiveness of permanent injunctions granted
during the initial decree is compromised. This is especially relevant in
trademark infringement, where brand owners' rights and the interests of
consumers and the general public are at stake.
For example, in cases involving medicinal preparations, the absence of Local
Commissioners in execution proceedings can result in patients unwittingly
purchasing products bearing infringing trademarks. This poses potential harm to
their health and is contrary to their interests. By allowing for the appointment
of Local Commissioners in execution petitions, the court can promptly and
effectively address trademark infringement issues, safeguarding the rights of
the decree holder and protecting the broader interests of society.
The Concluding Note:
In conclusion, the case before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi underscores the
pivotal role that Local Commissioners can play in execution proceedings
following a decree in trademark infringement cases. The appointment of a Local
Commissioner not only ensures a comprehensive investigation into the defendant's
activities but also facilitates the enforcement of court orders.
becomes especially crucial when trademark infringement cases involve continuous
violations and where the interests of consumers and the general public are at
risk. By allowing for the appointment of Local Commissioners in execution
petitions, the court can swiftly and effectively address trademark infringement
issues, thereby upholding the rights of the decree holder and safeguarding the
broader interests of the society.
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Psychotropics India Ltd Vs Syncom Healthcare Ltd.
Date of Judgement/Order:30/09/2019
Case No. CM M 1409 of 2019
Neutral Citation No: N.A.
Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge:Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public
Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it
is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception,
interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9990389539