India’s rapid economic expansion has triggered a surge in commercial disputes, particularly in the field of intellectual property (IP) and trademarks. Traditionally, trademark infringement suits dragged on for years in ordinary civil courts due to procedural delays and defendant-centric jurisdiction rules under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (amended in 2018) was a legislative response to this challenge. It introduced specialized commercial courts and significantly modified provisions of the CPC for commercial disputes. This has revolutionized how trademark disputes are litigated—speeding up procedures, providing plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction, and ensuring brand owners can protect their goodwill without waiting a decade for relief.
This article explores how the Commercial Courts Act reshaped the CPC, why it matters for trademark disputes, how jurisdiction is decided, and how much time is saved compared to ordinary civil courts.
Key CPC Amendments Under the Commercial Courts Act
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, did not discard the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). Instead, it introduced a special procedural regime by amending certain provisions of the CPC exclusively for commercial disputes. These amendments aim to reduce delays, encourage discipline in pleadings, and ensure that high-value disputes, particularly trademark cases, are decided efficiently.
Here is a closer look at the most important amendments:
1. Strict Timelines for Filing Written Statements (Order VIII Rule 1 CPC)
Under the general CPC, defendants often exploited loopholes by repeatedly seeking extensions to file their written statements, leading to years of procedural delay before a case even began.
- Amendment: In commercial disputes, defendants must file their written statement within 30 days of receiving summons. Courts may grant an extension, but not beyond 120 days. After this outer limit, the defendant loses the right to file a written statement altogether.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Infringers cannot prolong cases by delaying their pleadings.
- Trademark owners get to the injunction stage faster.
- Promotes discipline and accountability in litigation.
💡 Example: In SCG Contracts v. Chamankar Infrastructure (2019), the Supreme Court held that this 120-day limit is mandatory, not discretionary.
2. Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation (Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act)
A revolutionary step was the introduction of pre-institution mediation for commercial suits.
- Provision: Before filing a commercial suit, the plaintiff must attempt mediation, unless urgent interim relief (like an injunction) is required.
- Timeline: Mediation must be completed within 3 months, extendable by another 2 months if both parties agree.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Encourages out-of-court settlements in cases like accidental or small-scale infringement.
- Reduces unnecessary litigation in overburdened courts.
- Provides a structured forum for negotiation before moving to litigation.
💡 Case Reference: In Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that Section 12A is mandatory—a suit filed without mediation is not maintainable.
3. Case Management Hearings (Order XV-A CPC)
One of the most effective amendments is the introduction of case management hearings, where judges actively control timelines.
- Amendment: Courts must schedule case management hearings to fix strict deadlines for:
- Completion of pleadings
- Discovery and inspection of documents
- Admission/denial of documents
- Recording of evidence
- Hearing of arguments
- Objective: Ensure the trial is completed within 6 months from framing of issues and the entire suit disposed of within 12 months from the first case management hearing.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Prevents infringers from dragging on cross-examination and adjournments.
- Provides certainty to brand owners on when their disputes will be heard and resolved.
4. Enhanced Disclosure and Discovery Obligations (Order XI CPC)
Under the old CPC, discovery was often slow and incomplete, allowing infringers to hide damaging evidence.
- Amendment:
- Parties must disclose all relevant documents (favorable or unfavorable) at the outset with their pleadings.
- Late disclosure is possible only with court’s leave and valid reasons.
- Non-disclosure can lead to penalties or rejection of claims/defenses.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Infringers must produce invoices, advertising records, online sales data, etc., at the beginning.
- Courts can calculate damages, royalties, and profits more accurately.
- Reduces the risk of “trial by ambush.”
💡 Example: This is particularly useful in e-commerce trademark disputes where sales figures are critical to proving damages.
5. Evidence-in-Chief by Affidavit (Order XVIII CPC)
Recording oral evidence in court is one of the biggest causes of delay in civil litigation.
- Amendment:
- Examination-in-chief is to be submitted in the form of affidavits.
- Only cross-examination and re-examination are conducted in court.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Speeds up trials by cutting down unnecessary oral testimony.
- Saves judicial time, particularly in cases involving multiple witnesses such as sales agents or market experts.
6. Summary Judgment Procedure (Order XIII-A CPC)
This is one of the most significant tools introduced to fast-track commercial litigation.
- Amendment:
- Courts can grant summary judgment at any stage if they find that a party has “no real prospect of success” and there is no compelling reason for a full trial.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Extremely useful in cases of blatant infringement, counterfeiting, or cybersquatting where evidence is clear.
- Allows brand owners to stop infringers without waiting years for a trial.
- Practical Example: Cases where a small retailer is selling fake goods bearing an identical mark—summary judgments prevent lengthy, unnecessary litigation.
7. Costs Regime (Section 35 CPC as amended)
The Act strengthens the costs regime to discourage frivolous litigation.
- Amendment:
- Courts are required to award “realistic costs” to the successful party.
- If a court chooses not to award costs, it must record reasons in writing.
- Effect on Trademark Disputes:
- Protects brand owners from being financially burdened when they are forced to sue infringers.
- Deters infringers from adopting baseless defenses simply to delay proceedings.
- Makes litigation fairer by shifting the cost burden to the losing party.
💡 Example: If a counterfeit seller fights a case with no defense and loses, they may have to bear not only damages but also the plaintiff’s legal costs.
✨ Summary of the Amendments
| Amendment | Old CPC Position | Commercial Courts Amendment | Impact on Trademark Disputes |
| Written Statements | Flexible, endless adjournments | 30–120 days strict limit | Faster progress, less delay |
| Mediation | Not mandatory | Mandatory pre-suit mediation | Early settlements, fewer cases |
| Case Management | Rarely enforced | Time-bound stages | Certainty, quicker trials |
| Discovery | Limited & slow | Full disclosure at outset | Transparent damages |
| Evidence | Oral evidence lengthy | Affidavit-based chief | Saves time in trials |
| Summary Judgments | Rarely used | Available early in case | Stops obvious infringers fast |
| Costs | Often nominal | Realistic costs imposed | Deters frivolous defenses |
🔹 Why Commercial Courts Matter for Trademark Disputes
Trademark litigation forms a substantial share of commercial disputes. The Commercial Courts Act has transformed how these cases are handled:
1. Speedy Injunctions
Trademark owners often seek urgent injunctions to stop counterfeit products or infringing websites. Commercial courts’ strict timelines ensure early hearings, preserving brand goodwill.
2. Efficient Jurisdictional Clarity
Under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, trademark owners can sue:
- Where they reside or carry on business, or
- Where the cause of action arises.
Coupled with the Commercial Courts Act, this provision enables plaintiffs to file in specialized commercial courts even if infringers operate from elsewhere.
👉 Example: A Delhi-based company can sue in Delhi commercial courts for infringement by a seller operating online from another state.
3. Jurisdiction: Section 20 CPC vs. Commercial Courts Act
Traditionally, Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 required suits to be filed where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises. This often meant plaintiffs had to pursue infringers in faraway jurisdictions, increasing costs and delays.
By contrast, the Commercial Courts Act, read with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, tilts the balance in favor of plaintiffs. Trademark owners can sue where they themselves reside or conduct business, regardless of the defendant’s base. This plaintiff-friendly jurisdictional rule is particularly beneficial in the age of pan-India e-commerce infringement, saving time, costs, and ensuring faster relief.
4. Transparency in Damages
Because disclosure obligations are strict, commercial courts can calculate lost profits, royalties, and damages more accurately—critical in IP litigation.
5. Quick Disposal via Summary Judgments
Many trademark disputes involve identical marks and clear-cut evidence. Commercial courts use summary judgment powers to dispose of such cases without years of trial.
Landmark Trademark Jurisdiction Cases under Commercial Courts
The establishment of Commercial Courts has given Indian courts the opportunity to refine the rules of jurisdiction in trademark infringement suits. Here are some leading cases:
1. Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (2016, Delhi HC, Commercial Division)
- Facts: The plaintiff, carrying on business in Delhi, sued for trademark infringement though the defendant operated in Varanasi.
- Held: The Delhi High Court (Commercial Division) held that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act overrides Section 20 CPC, allowing the plaintiff to sue where it carries on business, irrespective of defendant’s location.
- Significance: First few cases after the Commercial Courts Act clarifying that plaintiff-centric jurisdiction is valid for trademark owners, strengthening brand protection.
2. Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani (2018, Delhi HC, Commercial Division)
- Facts: Burger King filed a suit in Delhi against a defendant operating in Nagpur for using deceptively similar marks.
- Held: The Delhi Commercial Court ruled that under Section 134 TM Act + Commercial Courts Act, Burger King could sue in Delhi since it had its principal office there.
- Significance: Reinforced the business presence of plaintiff as a valid ground for jurisdiction, protecting multinational trademark owners.
3. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Prag Distillery (2021, Bombay HC, Commercial Division)
- Facts: Allied Blenders (owners of “Officer’s Choice” whisky) sued Prag Distillery for infringement. Defendant challenged territorial jurisdiction.
- Held: The Bombay High Court (Commercial Division) upheld jurisdiction at the plaintiff’s place of business, relying on Section 134 TM Act.
- Significance: Clarified that Commercial Courts Act facilitates quicker adjudication of jurisdictional challenges, preventing delay tactics.
4. HSIL Ltd. v. Somany Ceramics Ltd. (2019, Delhi HC, Commercial Division)
- Facts: A dispute arose over sanitaryware trademarks; defendant argued that the Delhi court had no jurisdiction.
- Held: The court clarified that where the plaintiff has a subordinate office, the suit must be filed there and not at the principal office.
- Significance: Balanced the plaintiff’s right under Section 134 with safeguards against forum shopping.
5. RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma (2016, Delhi HC, Commercial Division)
- Facts: The plaintiff (owner of “Ghadi Detergent”) sued for infringement in Delhi. Defendant challenged jurisdiction.
- Held: The court held that commercial courts have jurisdiction where the plaintiff carries on business, even if the defendant has no presence there.
- Significance: Strengthened IP enforcement in commercial courts by confirming plaintiff-centric jurisdiction in trademark suits.
🔹 Why These Cases Matter
- They cement the principle that trademark owners can sue in their own place of business, giving them an edge under the Commercial Courts Act + Section 134 TM Act.
- They prevent forum shopping abuses while still offering protection against infringers operating from distant or obscure locations.
- They ensure early resolution of jurisdictional disputes so that the focus remains on the merits of infringement, not procedural hurdles.
| Case | Year & Court | Key Holding |
| Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey | 2016, Delhi HC (Commercial Division) | Section 134 TM Act allows plaintiff to sue where it carries on business, overriding Section 20 CPC. |
| Burger King Corp. v. Techchand Shewakramani | 2018, Delhi HC (Commercial Division) | Plaintiff can sue in Delhi commercial courts based on its business presence, even if defendant is elsewhere. |
| Allied Blenders v. Prag Distillery | 2021, Bombay HC (Commercial Division) | Upheld jurisdiction at plaintiff’s place of business, reinforcing plaintiff-centric approach. |
| HSIL Ltd. v. Somany Ceramics Ltd. | 2019, Delhi HC (Commercial Division) | Suit must be filed where plaintiff has a subordinate office, to avoid forum shopping. |
| RSPL Ltd. v. Mukesh Sharma | 2016, Delhi HC (Commercial Division) | Jurisdiction confirmed where plaintiff carried on business, even without defendant’s presence there. |
🔹 Time Saved: Commercial Courts vs. Civil Courts
The Act’s true value lies in the time efficiency it brings compared to traditional civil courts.
| Stage | Civil Courts (Average) | Commercial Courts (Average) |
| Filing of written statement | 6–12 months (multiple adjournments) | 30–120 days strict limit |
| Framing of issues | 1–2 years | Weeks (in case management hearing) |
| Trial completion | 5–7 years | 1–2 years |
| Final disposal (incl. appeal) | 7–10 years | 2–3 years |
👉 Net effect: A trademark infringement case that might drag for a decade in civil courts can often be resolved in 1–3 years before commercial courts.
🔹 Judicial Endorsement
Several Supreme Court rulings have cemented the framework:
- SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (2019) – 120-day limit for written statements is mandatory.
- Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (2022) – Pre-institution mediation under Section 12A is compulsory.
- Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises v. K.S. Infraspace (2020) – Commercial Courts Act overrides CPC where inconsistent.
- Allied Blenders v. Prag Distillery (2021) – Demonstrated efficiency of commercial courts in trademark jurisdiction disputes.
🔹 Challenges Ahead
- Infrastructure: Not all commercial courts have trained judges or adequate resources.
- Awareness: Many litigants are unaware of mandatory mediation.
- Two-tier system: While commercial suits move faster, older civil cases under CPC remain heavily backlogged.
🔹 Conclusion
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has revolutionized how trademark disputes are resolved in India. By amending the CPC to impose strict timelines, structured case management, mandatory mediation, and realistic costs, it has created a faster, more efficient framework for protecting brand owners.
The biggest gains for plaintiffs are:
- Speed: Cases resolved in years instead of decades.
- Jurisdictional clarity: Ability to sue in their own business location.
- Transparency: Stronger evidence and damages calculation.
While challenges of infrastructure and awareness remain, the Act is a game changer—turning India’s commercial litigation landscape into one that is more business-friendly, plaintiff-oriented, and efficient.
