Bolt, Pre-Litigation Mediation

Estonia-based-Plaintiff submits, Defendants are using an identical mark ‘BOLT’ with an identical color scheme.

image (1)

Plaintiff: SC has held, when an urgent interim relief is being sought, suit can be filed without resorting to pre-litigation mediation.

Defendants: SC has held, with effect from 20.08.2022, pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory.



In cases before us, suits do not contemplate ‘urgent interim relief’. As to what should happen in suits which do contemplate ‘urgent interim relief’ or rather meaning of ‘contemplate’ or ‘urgent interim relief’, we need not dwell upon it.

– Hon’ble Justice K.M. Joseph, M/s. Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14697 of 2021], 17.08.2022.


Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M. Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Bolt Technology OÜ v. Ujoy Technology Private Limited, [I.A. 13529-32/2022 in CS(COMM) 582/2022], 29.08.2022: As per experience seen in intellectual property cases, relief of interim injunction is extremely important. Such matters do not merely involve contesting parties before Court, but also involve interest of customers/consumers of products and services in question. Court is of opinion, Plaintiff would be entitled to seek urgent interim relief in present case. However, it is made clear, whether interim relief, as sought, ought to be granted or not is not being gone into. Court is yet to consider interim injunction on merits.

A perusal of correspondence leaves no doubt, hand of mediation lent by Plaintiff was met with a tight slap.

Defendants stated T-O-D-A-Y, they are willing to explore Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. List for reporting outcome on 12.09.2022.


Defendants are willing to modify their mark to ‘BOLT.EARTH’. Settlement has not fructified. Defendants’ further expansion henceforth shall be by using the mark as suggested today.

Plaintiff however objects and submits, the ‘.DOT’ ought not to be used. This submission can be considered at time of final adjudication of interim injunction on merits.

Hon’ble Justice Pratibha M. Singh of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Bolt Technology OÜ v. Ujoy Technology Private Limited, [I.A. 13529/2022 in CS(COMM) 582/2022], 23.11.2022.


Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/s. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 1 is most-authoritative on trans-border reputation and spill-over.

Plaintiff has not, in my opinion, been able to cross Toyota trans-border threshold of goodwill and reputation. Court must not permit large multinational corporations, which have no intent of coming to India, to throttle an Indian company by not permitting it to sell its product in India.

There is no justification, prima facie, for Court to jeopardize Defendant’s market or repute which it has earned, by allowing Petitioner’s application who has, prima facie, no spill-over or percolation of its trans-border reputation.

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of DelhiBolt Technology OÜ v. Ujoy Technology Private Limited, [I.A. 13529/2022 in CS(COMM) 582/2022], 24.02.2023.