"Supar SIP Traders LLP" added as Defendant No.3 for effective adjudication in `THUNDER 15000' trademark dispute; injunction against manufacturer extended to newly impleaded party.
In a significant development in trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court has ordered the impleadment of "Supar SIP Traders LLP" as Defendant No.3 in a passing off suit filed by Inbrew Beverages Private Limited against Kinjore Brewery Private Limited and others concerning the use of the mark "THUNDER 15000." The order dated October 7, 2026, was pronounced by Justice Tejas Karia in CS(COMM) 491/2026, highlighting the necessity of including an importer and distributor as a party to ensure effective adjudication.
The plaintiff, Inbrew Beverages Pvt. Ltd., initiated the suit alleging infringement of its trademark rights. During proceedings, it came to light that Supar SIP Traders LLP had obtained an excise license from the Delhi Excise Department and was actively importing and distributing the beer bearing the impugned mark within Delhi. The plaintiff argued that since Supar SIP Traders LLP operated under a contractual arrangement with the principal defendant (Kinjore Brewery Pvt. Ltd.) and played a pivotal role in the downstream supply chain within the territorial jurisdiction, it was a necessary and proper party to the suit.
The proposed Defendant No.3 contested the impleadment application, claiming to be merely an importer and distributor without any independent rights over the trademark and contending that any injunction against the manufacturer or brand owner would automatically bind it. It relied on the precedent from Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd., emphasizing the distinction between manufacturers and distributors.
However, the Court examined the admitted facts and held that since Supar SIP Traders LLP was directly involved in importing and distributing the product under the contested trademark within Delhi, it was indispensable for complete adjudication. Consequently, the Court allowed the impleadment application, directing the amended Memo of Parties to be taken on record.
Further, the Court permitted consequential amendments to the plaint to incorporate pleadings against the newly added party. Importantly, the Court extended the ad-interim injunction previously granted against Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to Supar SIP Traders LLP. The Court reasoned that failure to extend the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's rights, as the distributor admitted its role and contractual nexus with the principal defendant.
The Court directed the newly impleaded Defendant No.3 to file its written statement within 30 days and mandated the exchange of affidavits of admission or denial of documents filed by parties to ensure procedural transparency. The suit was listed for completion of pleadings in December 2026.
This judgment underscores the Delhi High Court's approach to ensuring that all entities engaged in the supply chain of allegedly infringing goods, including importers and distributors, are brought before the Court for holistic resolution. It clarifies that distributors cannot evade liability by virtue of being downstream actors when they operate under contractual arrangements with brand owners and actively participate in the territorial distribution of disputed goods.
Bottom Line:
Trade mark/passing off suit - Impleadment of importer and distributor of goods bearing impugned mark - Where proposed party admits that it imports and distributes the product under contractual arrangement with principal defendant within territorial jurisdiction, it is a necessary and proper party - Consequential amendment of plaint allowed - Interim injunction already operating against manufacturer/brand owner can be extended to such newly impleaded distributor.
Statutory provision(s):
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order I Rule 10, Order VI Rule 17, Section 151
