Online counterfeiting reaches the courtroom through a chain of proof. The listing identifies the representation made to the consumer; the purchase connects that representation to a seller; and the product delivered enables the court to test whether the mark has been used on genuine or counterfeit goods. In Bata India Limited v. Lalli Devi & Ors.1, that chain was completed before the plaintiff sought judicial intervention.
Bata India Limited discovered footwear bearing the BATA mark on Flipkart during the third week of May 2026. It issued a cease-and-desist notice to the first seller on 21 May 2026 and placed a test order on 3 June 2026. The footwear delivered on 6 June 2026 was found, upon inspection, to be counterfeit, although the product stated that it had been manufactured and marketed by Bata. A search of the Trade Marks Registry disclosed no registration or pending application for BATA in favour of the sellers.
Armed with these, Bata India Limited filed a commercial suit before the Delhi high court and obtained an order dated 8 July 2026 in which Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the sellers from dealing in goods under the BATA mark and directed Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. to remove the URLs identified in Annexure-A within 36 hours of receiving the order.
The order demonstrates how a trademark proprietor can translate an online investigation into urgent and precisely framed relief. Its reasoning moves through three stages: access to the Commercial Court without pre-institution mediation, establishment of Bata’s proprietary right, and application of the statutory presumption arising from the use of an identical mark on identical goods.
The Route from Urgency to Injunction
Bata’s first application concerned the procedural threshold under Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Since the allegedly infringing listings remained accessible and urgent relief was sought, Bata applied for exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A(1), read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court granted the exemption in light of Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, and the Delhi High Court Division Bench decision in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd.2. These authorities supplied the procedural basis on which a commercial suit contemplating urgent interim relief could proceed directly to judicial consideration. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was thereafter taken up for ex parte ad interim protection.
Once that threshold was crossed, Bata’s case moved from urgency to entitlement. It relied upon its registrations for BATA and its formative marks, the adoption of the mark in 1931, and its continuous and extensive use. The Court also recorded the earlier recognition accorded to the mark in Bata India Limited v. Pyare Lal & Co. Meerut City & Ors.3, decided by the Allahabad High Court on 23 January 1985. BATA was stated to have been declared a well-known mark in that decision and included in the Trade Marks Registry’s list of well-known marks.
That precedent established the distinctiveness attached to BATA. Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 supplied the statutory consequence. As the registered proprietor, Bata had acquired the exclusive right to use the mark and to restrain third parties from infringing it. Its extensive and continuous use also supported common law rights in BATA.
The test purchase then connected those rights to the impugned conduct. Bata placed before the Court material showing differences between the delivered footwear and the genuine product. Its counsel submitted that the sellers were manufacturing, marketing and selling shoes bearing the BATA mark; that the activity was calculated to mislead consumers into believing that the goods originated from or were associated with Bata; and that the conduct amounted to infringement under Section 29, dilution and passing off.
At that stage, the defendants had not entered appearance. The Court was therefore examining whether Bata’s documents established the requirements for interim protection. Justice Jyoti Singh found a prima facie case, held that the balance of convenience lay in Bata’s favour, and accepted that the company was likely to suffer irreparable harm if immediate relief was withheld.
The decisive statutory provision was Section 29(3). The sellers were prima facie using the identical mark BATA on shoes—the same goods for which Bata held registered rights. That identity aligned the mark, the goods, the trade channels and the relevant consumers. The Court accordingly held that “confusion is to be presumed” and found a prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(3).
The passing-off analysis followed the same evidentiary route. Use of BATA on the impugned footwear represented that the goods belonged to Bata or were sold through an association with it. The Court found that this conduct caused irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation developed by Bata over the years.
The relief reflected the structure of the case. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, including John Doe parties and persons acting on their behalf, were restrained from selling, offering for sale, advertising or promoting goods under BATA. Flipkart was directed to remove the specific URLs placed before the Court within 36 hours. The order thereby addressed both ends of the transaction: the sellers responsible for the impugned trade and the marketplace pages through which the goods reached consumers.
Conclusion
The order offers a practical model for online trademark enforcement. Bata’s statutory rights established the legal entitlement; the judicial recognition of BATA established the strength of the mark; and the test purchase connected the online listing to the counterfeit product delivered.
For trademark proprietors, the central lesson lies in building that evidentiary continuity. A marketplace screenshot identifies suspected use. A completed purchase establishes the commercial transaction. Inspection of the delivered product allows the plaintiff to demonstrate the precise manner in which the registered mark has been appropriated. Once identical use on identical goods is established, Section 29(3) enables the court to presume confusion and consider immediate relief.
The 36-hour direction to Flipkart shows the operational consequence of presenting that material with precision. Specific URLs produced a specific takedown order. The Court could act quickly because the plaintiff had already traced the infringement from its digital representation to the physical goods supplied.
The significance of Bata India Limited v. Lalli Devi therefore lies in litigation. In an online counterfeit action, the speed and accuracy of interim relief depend upon the plaintiff’s ability to prove the complete journey of the infringing product—from listing, to purchase, to delivery.
Expositor(s): Adv. Aparna Shukla
