MOKOBARA LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED [Plaintiff] Vs. FAZAL MOHAMED YAKUB PATKA AND ORS [Defendants]
CS(COMM) 591/2025
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL J.)
The present application was filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to submit additional documents in the case. The court allowed this request in accordance with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Since the suit involved urgent interim relief, the court granted an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi (2023). The plaint was formally registered as a suit, and summons were issued to the defendants through all available legal channels. The defendants were given thirty days to file their written statement along with an affidavit admitting or denying the plaintiff’s documents, while the plaintiff was granted thirty days to file a replication if required. The case was scheduled for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on August 1, 2025, and before the Court on October 10, 2025.
The plaintiff, Mokobara, is a luggage manufacturing company established in 2019, known for its distinctive product designs and branding. It holds a registered trademark for its rectangular device mark and has developed a unique trade dress for its products, including specific color combinations, horizontal ridges, yellow-checkered inner lining with the letter ‘m’, neon piping, and placement of its logo. The company sells its products through various channels, including its own stores, e-commerce platforms, and retail outlets, achieving significant revenue growth and spending substantially on advertising and promotions. Mokobara has gained considerable recognition in the industry, receiving awards and media coverage for its innovative designs and quality products.
The defendants, operating under the names M/s American Leather Works and a sole proprietorship, were accused of selling luggage products under the brand ‘Greenland’ that allegedly copied Mokobara’s registered trademark and trade dress. The plaintiff discovered the infringing products being sold on the defendants’ website and social media platforms. An investigator purchased one of these products as evidence, confirming the similarities between the defendants’ designs and Mokobara’s protected intellectual property. The plaintiff argued that the defendants deliberately adopted these features to mislead consumers and benefit from Mokobara’s established reputation in the market.
After reviewing the submissions, the court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The defendants’ device mark was deemed confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark, and their trade dress was virtually identical to Mokobara’s distinctive product design. The court concluded that allowing the defendants to continue using these marks would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff and potentially deceive consumers. As a result, an interim injunction was granted, restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks and trade dress. The plaintiff was directed to comply with procedural requirements under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, including serving the injunction order and filing an affidavit within specified timelines. The case will proceed with further hearings to address the substantive issues and determine the final outcome.
