An ad-interim injunction is a start, not a finish. To turn a Day-1 win into a decree, treat the order like a project: lock undertakings, orchestrate Receiver/Commissioner execution, build a compliance record (affidavits, take-downs, inventories), and convert market control into consent terms or trial-ready evidence. Bombay IPD cases show the arc clearly Prince Pipes (injunction + Court Receiver → consent decree & Receiver discharged), SOCIAL v Social Tribe (swift city-specific restraint with service on the defendant), Parachute v Cocoplus (get-up focus powering interim relief), and Everest–TIKHALAL (dishonesty → costs).
Why this matters (for founders, owners, and litigators)
- Orders without execution leak value. Day-1 relief can evaporate if stock keeps moving or infringing listings stay live. That’s why courts often appoint Receivers/Commissioners to search, seal, and seize; your job is to make those orders bite.
- Momentum lowers litigation cost. Clean execution—and a paper trail of compliance nudges defendants to settle on consent terms (compromise decree) instead of grinding through trial. Prince Pipes is a model: ad-interim + Receiver action → consent; Receiver discharged by order.
- Bad faith increases leverage. Where courts spot fabrication or “brand-style” use of a so-called descriptor, they impose costs and issue broad restraints (e.g., TIKHALAL: ₹2 lakh for fabricated invoices).
The conversion playbook (reasoning first, result next)
1) Lock undertakings early and make them verifiable
Reasoning: Undertakings that mirror the ad-interim scope stabilise the market and reduce enforcement friction. Draft for verifiability: SKU lists, domains/handles, vendor IDs, and a schedule for pull-downs.
Result: A shorter path to compromise decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC when the defendant sees the writing on the wall (as in Prince Pipes).
2) Use the Receiver/Commissioner as your field team
Reasoning: Where counterfeiting or movable inventory is a risk, a Receiver/Commissioner with police aid can search, seal, seize, and report—under court supervision (Order XL CPC). IPD courts routinely tailor these powers; recent orders even allow acting on digital copies of orders to move quickly.
Result: On-ground disruption of the infringing supply chain; an evidentiary record (panchnamas, photo-logs) that later supports damages or settlement. See also other raid-style actions (e.g., multi-location seizures in a “Gopal” snacks case).
3) Build a compliance file the court can trust
Reasoning: Judges care about process fidelity: prompt service (email/speed-post proofs), fast platform takedowns, and affidavits of compliance. In SOCIAL v Social Tribe, clean service + unrefuted pleadings supported swift restraint against a same-city copycat.
Result: Continuing status-quo protection through the case lifecycle and credibility when you ask for tighter relief (e.g., stock recall, account disclosures).
4) Keep the trial file growing while you enforce
Reasoning: Interim success should feed the merits: Receiver inventories, sales-pull data from platforms, confusion instances, and forensic comparisons (get-up, colourway, silhouette). The Parachute v Cocoplus order shows how overall get-up and deviation from the defendant’s registration carry weight.
Result: A merits-ready brief (or settlement leverage) that converts ad-interim relief into final decree or consent decree without surprises.
5) Police dishonesty—because courts will
Reasoning: If you catch fabricated invoices/retro-fitted records, put a document-integrity matrix on file (registry submission vs court affidavit, numbering, GST timelines). TIKHALAL is the cautionary tale—bad faith invited adverse inference and ₹2 lakh costs.
Result: Stronger injunction terms, cost orders, and a defendant incentivised to settle on terms.
Flowchart — From ad-interim to decree
Order granted → Serve & publish → Execute (Receiver/Platforms) → File compliance → Grow the merits → Convert (consent or trial decree)
- Serve fast: Email + speed-post + platform notice; put proofs on record. (SOCIAL shows why service matters.)
- Execute: If you have search-and-seizure, coordinate Receiver logistics; get police aid if authorised; secure photo-inventories. (Prince Pipes template.)
- Compliance file: Affidavit under O.39 R.3 CPC; annex takedown IDs, domain-locks, SKU withdrawals.
- Evidence growth: Side-by-side grids; sales uplift post-order; confusion complaints. (Parachute, TIKHALAL reinforce why visual & conduct evidence wins.)
- Convert:
- Consent terms → decree, Receiver discharged with directions for sealed goods. (Prince Pipes, 28 Jun 2021.)
- Or trial decree, powered by your now-mature evidentiary record.
Comparison table — Four states of play
| Stage | What you actually have | Risks if you stop | How to upgrade |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ad-interim order | Paper restraint; initial optics | Evasion, inventory leakage, stale evidence | Receiver/Commissioner, platform blitz, compliance affidavits |
| Ad-interim + execution | Seized/ sealed stock; takedowns; reports | Drip-back via new channels; appeal skirmishes | Scheduled status reports; police-aid clauses; contempt triggers |
| Consent decree | Binding settlement; tailored relief | Non-performance on logistics | Clear timelines, default consequences; Receiver discharge protocol |
| Final decree | Merits win; durable injunction | Appeal | Tight reasoning; quantified harm; post-decree enforcement plan |
Examples: Prince Pipes (ad-interim + Receiver → consent; Receiver discharged), SOCIAL (clean service + same city/services → robust interim restraint), Parachute (get-up logic), TIKHALAL (costs for fabrication).
Case timeline — What good looks like
- Week 0: Ad-interim order.
- Week 1: Service proofs filed; Receiver executes (if granted); platform takedowns issued.
- Week 2–3: Affidavit of compliance + Receiver’s first report; request clarifications if resistance.
- Month 1–2: Negotiation window with draft consent terms (SKUs, packaging changes, destruction/disposal protocol). (Prince Pipes model.)
- Month 2–6: If no settlement, complete discovery, lodge confusion proofs, push for expedited trial in Commercial Court.
Checklist — Your “conversion to decree” SOP
A. Undertakings & logistics
- Undertakings covering manufacture, stocking, display, advertising, and online listings; attach SKU/domain schedules.
- Deadlines for re-pack/destruction, with photographic proof.
B. Receiver/Commissioner management
- Route plan, police-aid clause, digital-order enablement, chain-of-custody for seized goods.
C. Compliance record
- O.39 R.3 affidavit; marketplace ticket IDs; registrar locks; app-store/Instagram/Maps take-downs.
- Periodic Receiver reports and stock reconciliation.
D. Merits file
- Same-scale photography grids, planograms, and get-up comparisons (Parachute).
- Confusion: mis-deliveries, DMs, call-logs, customer emails.
- Dishonesty: invoice/affidavit mismatches (the TIKHALAL lesson).
E. Exit path
- Consent terms → decree (with Receiver discharge instructions), or press to final decree on a tight issues-list.
Sparring-partner corner (pressure-testing easy assumptions)
- “We got an injunction; we’re done.” No—without execution + compliance, leakage resumes. Your aim is a decree, not a headline.
- “Receivers are overkill.” Not in counterfeiting or fast-moving goods. Courts expect you to use court-supervised tools to prevent spoliation and preserve proof.
- “We’ll win at trial anyway.” Maybe—but a messy interim record can sap credibility. Use interim months to bank evidence and shape settlement.
About the Author
Suresh Kumar, Advocate, is the Managing Attorney at Unimarks Legal Solutions, Chennai. Practising since 2008, he focuses on trademark infringement and passing off, appeals from the Registrar, rectification, and online/platform enforcement before the Madras High Court (IPD), Commercial Courts, and District Courts across Tamil Nadu. He frequently speaks on IP at industrial forums and universities and is associated with SICCI, CII, and the Tamil Nadu Chamber of Commerce.
This article is for information and education. It is not legal advice, does not create a lawyer–client relationship, and avoids case-specific recommendations. Conflicts are screened per firm policy before any engagement.
