Urgent interim relief and pre-institution mediation under Section 12A: commercial suit held maintainable in a trade mark dispute.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is mandatory only where a commercial suit does not genuinely seek urgent interim relief; where urgency is properly pleaded, pre-institution mediation does not bar institution. The Delhi HC applied this principle in a trade mark and passing off dispute, noting continuing use of the impugned mark in a live market and the ongoing availability of the competing mobile applications. The Court also relied on the plaintiff's prior attempt at amicable resolution and the defendants' response to conclude that no realistic pre-suit settlement was likely. The Section 12A objection was rejected, the suit was held maintainable, and costs were awarded against the defendants while urgent interim relief remained for further consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit could be maintained without prior pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 on the ground that urgent interim relief was contemplated.

Analysis: Section 12A is mandatory where a commercial suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief, but it does not bar institution of a suit where such relief is genuinely sought. The Court applied the settled position that commercial disputes involving trade mark and passing off allegations may require immediate protection, and that urgency must be assessed in the overall factual context. On the facts, the Plaintiff had asserted continuing use of the impugned mark by the Defendants in a live market situation where the competing mobile applications remained available for download on a continuing basis. The Court also noted the Plaintiff's prior attempt at amicable resolution and the Defendants' response, which negated any realistic prospect of pre-institution settlement.

Conclusion: The objection based on non-compliance with Section 12A was rejected, and the suit was held maintainable. Costs were awarded against the Defendants, while the request for urgent interim relief was kept for further consideration and referred to mediation in the meantime.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were permitted to continue on the footing that the statutory mediation bar did not apply to the suit as framed, and the matter proceeded without dismissal at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: A commercial suit may be instituted without pre-institution mediation where the plaint genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief, and Section 12A does not operate as a bar in such a case.

---