NEW DELHI, Oct. 29 -- When imitation masquerades as innovation, it sows confusion among consumers, taints the marketplace and diminishes faith in the sanctity of trade, the Supreme Court has underlined, ruling that courts cannot insist on pre-litigation mediation in intellectual property infringement cases where the injury is continuing and deception of the public is involved. Holding that urgency in such cases must be judged in light of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception, a bench of justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe said that a mere delay in filing a suit does not dilute the urgency if the infringement persists. "Urgency does not lie in the age of the cause but in the persistence of the peril," the court held in its ruling on Monday. It added: "The court cannot be unmindful of the fact that intellectual property rights (IPR) disputes are not confined to the private realm. the public interest element, need to prevent confusion in the market and to protect consumers from deception further imparts a colour of immediacy to the reliefs sought." The judgment declared that in actions alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights, urgency must be assessed in the context of the ongoing injury and the public interest in preventing deception. "Mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency when the infringement is continuing. Courts should focus on the substance of the plea for interim protection, not on the time elapsed since discovery of the infringement," it held. The ruling came while setting aside a Himachal Pradesh High Court order that had rejected the plaint of a Danish fan manufacturer on the ground that it had not first undertaken pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The high court had reasoned that there was no genuine urgency since the company had waited several months after discovering the infringement before moving court. Disagreeing with that view, the Supreme Court restored the suit and clarified that intellectual property disputes, especially those involving continuing infringements, stand on a different footing because each act of unauthorised manufacture, sale or offer for sale constitutes a fresh wrong and recurring cause of action. Notably, the ruling adds crucial judicial clarity to the interface between intellectual property enforcement and procedural mandates under the Commercial Courts Act. It reaffirms that IPR enforcement carries an element of public interest, given its role in protecting consumers from deception and ensuring fair competition. The appellant, a Danish company engaged in the manufacture of high-efficiency industrial fans under the brand 'Novenco ZerAx', had entered into a dealership agreement in 2017 with Hyderabad-based Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt Ltd for sale of its products in India....