When two businesses sue each other over the same trademark in different cities, the real first battle is not infringement — it is geography. In M/s The Supreme Industries Limited v. M/s Supremo India Private Limited, Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 3594 of 2025 with Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 175 of 2026, decided on 28 October 2026 (2026 INSC 1170), the Supreme Court cut through cross transfer petitions by sending both suits — one pending before the Commercial Court at Indore, the other before the Delhi High Court — to a third, neutral forum: the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
The mirror-image litigation
The dispute concerns the word mark “SUPREME”. Supremo India Private Limited moved first in Indore: its suit, CS (Comm) No. 134 of 2025 before the District Judge (Commercial) Court, sought a permanent injunction against Supreme Industries’ use of the mark, disclosure of assets, takedown of goods from e-commerce platforms, and Rs 15,00,000 in damages. Supreme Industries answered with its own suit in the Delhi High Court — CS (Comm) No. 1294 of 2025 — alleging infringement of its registered trademark, passing off, copyright infringement in its label and logo, and dilution, with claims of Rs 2,00,01,000 in damages and a prayer to declare “SUPREME” a well-known mark.
Each party then petitioned the Supreme Court to move the other’s suit: Supreme Industries sought transfer of the Indore suit to Delhi, and Supremo India sought transfer of the Delhi suit to Indore.
What the Court did
The Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria recorded two things that decided the matter. First, counsel on both sides accepted that the two suits should be tried by a single court — the sensible position, since both suits will turn on the same rival claims to the same mark. Second, neither side would concede the other’s home forum. The Court resolved the deadlock by choosing neither: both suits now stand transferred to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.
The order is expressly not a judgment on the merits: the Court recorded that it did not express a view on the rival claims and left several arguments unaddressed.
Why consolidation matters in trademark fights
Parallel suits over one mark create three concrete risks: inconsistent interim orders — one court restraining use while the other declines; duplicated evidence, with the same witnesses and sales records proved twice; and a race to judgment in which each decree is then wielded against the other proceeding. A single forum eliminates all three. The price is convenience — here, both sides must now litigate in a city that is home to neither suit, which is precisely what made the choice workable as a neutral solution.
Practice point: in cross-suit situations, a transfer petition under Section 25 CPC is often the most consequential interlocutory step in the litigation. Parties who cannot agree on a forum should expect the Supreme Court to weigh neutrality, and should assess early whether consolidation helps or hurts their evidentiary position — because once the suits sit before one judge, the pleadings in each become ammunition in both.
The takeaway
For businesses in brand disputes, the decision illustrates a practical reality: where both sides have filed, the venue question will likely be answered by consolidation, and not necessarily in either side’s preferred city. Building the record for — or against — a particular forum, and moving promptly on transfer, is as much a part of trademark strategy as the merits themselves.
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the two suits about?
Supremo India sued Supreme Industries before the District Judge (Commercial) Court, Indore — CS (Comm) No. 134 of 2025 — seeking a permanent injunction over the “SUPREME” mark, asset disclosure, removal of listings from e-commerce platforms and Rs 15 lakh in damages. Supreme Industries sued Supremo India before the Delhi High Court — CS (Comm) No. 1294 of 2025 — alleging infringement of its registered mark, passing off, copyright infringement in the label, and dilution, claiming over Rs 2 crore in damages and a well-known mark declaration.
Why did the Supreme Court transfer both suits?
Each side wanted the other’s suit moved to its own preferred city. Counsel for the parties agreed that both suits should be tried by one court but disagreed on which. Without deciding the merits, the Court transferred both suits to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, directing the courts at Indore and Delhi to transmit the records promptly and the parties to appear at Ahmedabad on 26 November 2026.
Under what power does the Supreme Court transfer civil suits?
Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Supreme Court to transfer a suit from one state to another where it is expedient in the interest of justice. Competing suits on the same subject matter in different states — with the risk of conflicting findings and duplicated trials — are a classic occasion for its exercise.
Does a transfer order decide who owns the mark?
No. The Court expressly recorded that it was not expressing any view on the merits and did not address several arguments advanced at the bar. The transfer only fixes the venue; ownership, infringement and damages remain for the transferee court to decide.