The Delhi High Court restrained two defendants from producing and marketing the potato variety ‘SRF-C51’, finding it deceptively similar to the registered plant variety ‘COLOMBA’ owned by the plaintiff. The Court held that a prima facie case had been established for injunction and directed the removal of a YouTube video promoting the infringing variety. The Court also observed that the counsel for the defendants violated the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, and consequently barred her from appearing via video conferencing before the Court.
The case arose when the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were unlawfully producing and promoting the potato variety ‘SRF-C51’, which infringed upon the registered plant variety ‘COLOMBA’. A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court was obstructed while executing the commission, and the police officer accompanying her refused to assist. The officer later filed an affidavit denying the allegation. The expert report filed in a sealed cover revealed that the defendants’ samples and the plaintiff’s variety shared identical or common parental lines.
The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants’ conduct and the expert report clearly established infringement of the plaintiff’s registered variety. It was also pointed out that the defendants had failed to file their written statement within the prescribed time, leaving no defence on record. During the hearing, the counsel for the defendants disconnected from the video conference, citing another ongoing proceeding.
Taking note of this, the Court observed that the conduct of the counsel was contrary to the Delhi High Court’s Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, and barred her from appearing virtually in the future. On the merits of the case, the Court found that the expert report confirmed the similarity between the two potato varieties, thus supporting the plaintiff’s claim.
The Court held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that non-grant of an injunction would cause irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants, their affiliates, and agents from producing, selling, marketing, or dealing in the potato variety ‘SRF-C51’ or any other product infringing the plaintiff’s registered variety ‘COLOMBA’. The Court further directed the removal of the YouTube video promoting the infringing product.
The matter will be taken up next on January 19, 2026.
Case Title: Mahindra Hzpc Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Shri Ram Farms & Ors.
Case No.: CS(COMM) 985/2024 & I.A. 44338/2024
Coram: Justice Tejas Karia
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Dr. Amitavo Mitra, Vivek Ayyagari, Shruti Jain, Harsshita Pothiraj
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Renu Arora
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
