QUIKR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED  Vs NIKE INNOVATE C.V & ANR.

FAO 16/2021 Page 1 of 5

$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 13th January, 2021
+ FAO 16/2021
QUIKR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Appellant
versus
NIKE INNOVATE C.V & ANR. ….. Respondent s
HON’BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Rishabh Bansal, Mr. Arjun Rao and
Mr. Maitryi Bhat, Advocate s

For the Respondent s: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advocate
CORAM: –
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CM APPLN. 1030/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. FAO 16/2021 & CM APPLN. 1028-29/2021
2. Appellant impugns order dated 19.12.2020 whereby the trial
court has , on the very first date , disposed of the application filed by
the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted an ex –
parte injunction, inter -alia, r estraining the appellant from using,
manufacturing, selling, soliciting, displ aying, advertising by visual,
2021:DHC:139

FAO 16/2021 Page 2 of 5

audio, print mode or by any other mode or by any other mode or
manner dealing in or selling/soliciting, intending to sell or solicit
through www.quikr.com and their mobile application under the name
of Quikr or through any other online websites and/or online platforms
or through social medias or in any manner using the impugned counterfeit goods under impugned trademarks/logos Nike, Swoosh
Device, Nike Pro, Nike+, Nike Air Jordan, Jordan, Jump man (device)
in relation to the ir impugned goods and business and from doing any
other acts pre -deeds amounting to or likely to infringement of
respondent ‘s registered trademarks/logos; infringement of respondent ‘s
copyrights in the said trademarks/Logos; passing off of the
respondent ‘s rights in respondent ‘s said trademarks/Logos; violation of
respondent ‘s rights in its trade name/Logos. Appellants have further
been restrained till further orders from disposing off or dealing with
their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the
Memos of Parties of the plaint and their stocks -in-trade.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant is a
mere intermediary and is not a seller and does not stock any articles and provides only a consumer -to-consumer based s elling platform .
4. Learned counsel further contends that the trial court has
disposed of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC without even issuing notice to the appellant. He further submits that the relief granted of restraining the appellant from disposing of and dealing with
their assets including their premises at the addresses as mentioned in
2021:DHC:139

FAO 16/2021 Page 3 of 5

the Memo of Parties is beyond the pleadings in the suit. He further
submits that since the appellant is an intermediary there is no stock-in trade of the subject footwear under the brand name in issue of the
respondent .
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that no complaint
was ever received from the respondent prior to filing of the suit.
6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for
respondent no. 1.
7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that the direction
in the impugned order that the application stands disposed of is
apparently erroneous. He further concedes that the s ubject matter of
the Suit is not the assets or the premises of the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 contends that there was
no mention of a Grievance Officer on the website and as such no
complaint has been lodged.
9. In view of the above the appeal is disposed of with a direction
that the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is restored to the file of the trial court and be decided afresh.
10. Appellant shall file the Written Statement and its reply to the
application in accordance with law.
11. Pending consideration of the application under Order 39 rule 1
2021:DHC:139

FAO 16/2021 Page 4 of 5

& 2 by the trial court , the restraint placed on the appellant from using,
manufacturing, selling, soliciting, displ aying, advertising by visual,
audio, print mode or by any other mode or by any other mode or
manner dealing in or selling/soliciting, intending to sell or solicit
through www.quikr.com and their mobile application under the name
of Quikr or through any other online websites and/or online platforms
or through social medias or in any manner using the impugned
counterfeit goods under impugned trademarks/logos Nike, Swoosh
Device, Nike Pro, Nike+, Nike Air Jordan, Jordan, Jump man (device)
in relation to the ir impugned goods and business and from doing any
other acts pre -deeds amounting to or likely to infringement of
respondent ‘s registered trademarks/logos; infringement of
respondent ‘s copyrights in the said trademarks/Logos; passing off of
the respondent ‘s rights in respondent’s said trademarks/Logos;
violation of respondent’s rights in its trade name/Logos shall continue
till the disposal of the appli cation under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC .
12. Further, i n view of the statement of learned coun sel for the
appellant that they are mere intermediaries and only provide an online
trading platform and do not have any stock-in -trade of footwear of the
subject mark, the impugned order to the said extent also does not
warrant any inter ference at this stage , as no prejudice that would be
cause d to the appellant pending the disposal of the application under
order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC .
13. However, with regard to the restrain t on the appellant from
2021:DHC:139

FAO 16/2021 Page 5 of 5

disposing of or dealing with their assets, including their premises at
the addresses mentioned in the M emo of Parties is conce rned, since
there is no rationale or justification qua the same and admittedly are
not subject matter of the Suit, the same cannot be sustained and
accordingly, the o rder to the said extent is set aside .
14. This would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of
the parties and that would not, in any manner, amount to waiver of the
rights of the plaintiff.
15. Trial Court shall decide the appli cation under order 39 rule 1
and 2 CPC afresh, wit hout being influenced by anything stated in this
order.
16. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
17. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and
be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court
Master.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 13, 2021
‘rs’

2021:DHC:139