Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd vs Ashish Bansal And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 1461 Del

Delhi High Court

Abros Sports International Pvt. Ltd vs Ashish Bansal And Ors on 13 March, 2026

Author: C. Hari Shankar

Bench: C. Hari Shankar

                  $~3
                  *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                  +      FAO(OS) (COMM) 140/2024
                         ABROS SPORTS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD .....Petitioner
                                       Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shakti
                                       Priyan Nair and Mr. Parth Bajaj, Advs.

                                                versus

                         ASHISH BANSAL AND ORS.                 .....Respondents
                                      Through: Ms. Pranjal Vyas, Ms. Ayushi
                                      Arya and Ms. Samriddhi Tiwari, Advs.
                         CORAM:
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
                                                ORDER (ORAL)

                  %                               13.03.2026

                  C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

CM APPL. 11911/2026 (condonation of delay in filing review petition)

1. This application seeks condonation of delay of 243 days in filing the review petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

4. The appellant had, in this appeal, urged both infringement and

passing off.

5. By the order under review, we had noticed this fact and had found that on the aspect of whether the appellant would be entitled to plead infringement, had expressed a view that, as we were not in agreement with the judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Raj Kumar Prasad v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd1 and Corza International v. Future Bath Products Pvt Ltd2, which held that an infringement suit would lie, referred the matter to the larger Bench to decide the issue framing questions for that purpose.

6. Incidentally, we may note that, after the order under review was passed, we were shown the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Syed Mohideen v. P Sulochana Bai3 which clearly holds that an infringement suit would not lie against a registered trademark. We have, thereafter, followed the said decision.

7. Be that as it may, Mr. Narula's contention is that as the aspect of infringement has been referred to a larger Bench and he had also pleaded passing off, the Court may proceed to decide the issue of passing off.

8. We are afraid that is not possible. The appeal cannot be decided in part. In case Mr. Narula seeks to give up the plea of infringement, he would have to move an appropriate application for that purpose and, in case, such an application is moved, the Court

1 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7708 2 2023 SCC OnLine Del 153 3 (2016) 2 SCC 683

would take a call.

9. So long as Mr. Narula is pressing the aspect of infringement, we cannot alter the order under review passed by us.

10. The review petition is disposed of accordingly.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

MARCH 13, 2026/AR