https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783840 Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was interpreted to determine whether a commercial suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, coupled with a prayer for interim injunction, "contemplates any urgent interim relief" despite delay in filing. The SC held that continuing infringement constitutes a recurring cause of action, and mere delay does not legalise infringement or defeat injunctive relief; urgency must be assessed from the plaint and annexed material showing ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing deception, not by adjudicating merits at the threshold. The HC erred by treating time lag as negating urgency and by applying a merits-based test. The impugned HC orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783840 Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was interpreted to determine whether a commercial suit alleging continuing infringement of patent and design rights, coupled with a prayer for interim injunction, "contemplates any urgent interim relief" despite delay in filing. The SC held that continuing infringement constitutes a recurring cause of action, and mere delay does not legalise infringement or defeat injunctive relief; urgency must be assessed from the plaint and annexed material showing ongoing injury, irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing deception, not by adjudicating merits at the threshold. The HC erred by treating time lag as negating urgency and by applying a merits-based test. The impugned HC orders were set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783840