Bar&Bench (

Similar documents
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 10 th JANUARY, 2019 P.C.: 1. The Plaintif - Sapat and Company (Bombay) Private Limited is a Company

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus 1. Curetech Skincare 2. Galpha Laboratories Ltd. Defendants

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 23 rd April, 2018 J U D G M E N T

KPP Suit (L) No. 967 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

#25 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 30 th May, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN J U D G M E N T

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) No.1564/2016. % 24 th November, 2017

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 13 th August, 2018 J U D G M E N T

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS. Through None. % Date of Decision : 05 th December, 2017

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 64/2018 & I.A. 927/2015. Versus GRASIM ELECTRICALS AND. Through Ex parte

$~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) 1468/2016 & I.A.No.1532/2017. versus. % Date of Decision: 02 nd November, 2017

versus CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015

$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 35/2017. Through Mr. Raunaq Kamath, Advocate. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Reserved on : 20 th July, 2017 % Date of Decision: 31 st July, 2017 J U D G M E N T

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO OF Society Ltd (IPRS)..Petitioner Vs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRADE MARK Order Reserved on: Date of Decision: January 29, 2007 CS(OS)No.

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI M/S. KALPAMRIT AYURVED PVT. Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN O R D E R %

$~OS-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: CS(COMM) 69/2017. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM)695/2017 & I.A.No.11854/2017. versus. % Date of Decision: 10 th May, 2018 J U D G M E N T

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ORS... Defendants Through None

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 11 th July, 2018 Pronounced on: 31 st July, CS(COMM) 503/2016, IA No.

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 458/2015. versus. Through: None.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order:

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 12 th December, 2017 J U D G M E N T

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MANAS CHANDRA & ANR... Defendants Through: None

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA No.3522/08 & IA No. 5331/2008 in CS(OS) No.511/2008

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 06 th November, 2017 J U D G M E N T

TNT India Private Limited } Petitioner versus Principal Commissioner of } Customs (II) and Ors. } Respondents

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Reserve: Date of Order: March 20, 2008

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913 CS (OS) No. 563/2005 Date of Decision:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.53/2015 & 54/ CS(COMM) No. 53/2015 and I.A. No.25929/2015 (stay)

ii) The respondent did not furnish a Bank Guarantee for the amount of Rs crores and also did not pay the service tax payable on the said amount

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF 2019 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014] Versus

F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus.

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

F-39 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES. versus. Through: None. % Date of Decision: 19 th December, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 16 th March, 2018 Pronounced on: 02 nd April, versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 419/2008 Date of Decision: 05th February, 2013.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/24/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/24/2015 EXHIBIT C

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 728/2018. versus CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN: TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT & THE RED SOLE SAGA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRADE MARK MATTER

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Order delivered on: 20 th August, CS (OS) No.1668/2013. versus

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Decided on: versus CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT

F-26 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) 148/2017 & I.As. 3483/2015 AND 12144/2015 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 12 th March, 2018 Pronounced on: 12 th April, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Judgment Pronounced on: CS(OS) No.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) CIVIL SUIT NO 231 OF 2010 MAUDA ATUZARIRWE}...

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI UTV SOFTWARE COMMUNICATIONS. versus. Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

$~O-1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: CS(COMM) 99/2016. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.514 OF 2013

$~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

DATE: 23 rd AUGUST, The Petitioner, Star India Pvt. Ltd., has!led the above Petition under

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO OF 2015

$~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018

THE TRADE MARKS ACT, (Act No. 19 of 2009 dated 24 March 2009)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MICROSOFT CORPORATION & ANR. Through: Ms. Safia Said, Advocate. versus. Through:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No.1180/2011 & connected matters % 15 th February, 2016

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. THEPIRATEBAY.ORG AND ORS... Defendants Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 788 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 29 th May, 2018.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017

FACTUAL NOTE IN RESPECT OF BHATHA LAND (BLOCK NO. 610) FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED BY THE BANK FOR ITS SALE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

I.A. No /2012 (u/order XXXVII Rule 3 (5) CPC)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 20 th May, Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + I.A. Nos /2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002

IP MANAGEMENT IN NIGERIA: TRADEMARKS & DESIGNS

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Co. Pet. 8/2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Decided on: versus CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA JUDGMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO.3777 OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) No of 2014]

TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999

REPORT ON SPECIAL TOPIC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.377 OF 2008

J2s\~",~ov<j", Through. versus. & ORS. ... Defendants CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR ORDER %

ICSI-CCGRT. ICSI-CCGRT GEETA SAAR A Brief of Premier on Company Law. Registered Office of a company (Sec 12)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.365 /2008 DATE OF DECISION : 10th February, 2012 VERSUS

% Judgment reserved on: 18 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 25 th January, FAO(OS) 280/2015 & CM Nos.9540/2015, 9542/2015

Transcription:

kpd 1 / 5 NMCDL 596 2018.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 596 OF 2018 IN COMMERCIAL IP (L) NO. 336 OF 2018 Parle Agro Private Limited Applicant (Org. Plaintiff ) In the matter between : Parle Agro Private Limited Plaintiff Versus Gulam Moinuddin Khan and another Defendants Mr. Hiren Kamod alongwith Mr. Vaibhav Kini instructed by Khaitan & Co. for the Plaintiff. Gulam Moinuddin Khan Defendant No.1 present. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATED : 28 th MARCH, 2018 P.C.: 1. The Plaintiff - Parle Agro Private Limited has filed the above Suit against Mr. Gulam Moinuddin Khan, proprietor of Royal India Foods carrying on business at 114, Balaji Industrial Park Tondre, MIDC, Taloja, Navi Mumbai 410 208 seeking reliefs on the ground that the Defendants are engaged in wrongful activities of infringing the registered trademarks, copyrights of the Plaintiff and committing the tort of passing off, in the circumstances explained in the Plaint.

kpd 2 / 5 NMCDL 596 2018.sxw 2. An application for urgent ad-interim order was moved before this Court on 16 th March, 2018 i.e. for appointment of Court Receiver and injunction. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order passed by this Court dated 16 th March, 2018, are reproduced hereunder :- 1. The rival prodcuts are produced before me. The photographs of the rival products are reproduced hereinbelow: PLAINTIFF S PRODUCT DEFENDANTS PRODUCT The dishonesty of the Defendants is apparent from the fact that the Defendants have copied the overall color scheme, layout, get up and the entire trade dress of the Plaintiff s FROOTI product including the bottle shape and the yellow bottle caps and the Impugned Product of the Defendants is identical to the Plaintiff s FROOTI product as depicted at EXHIBIT B to the plaint. It is therefore clear that the Defendants have

kpd 3 / 5 NMCDL 596 2018.sxw deliberately and dishonestly adopted and used the Impugned Mark FROOTIN and the Impugned Label which is identical to the FROOTI Label of the Plaintiff. In the circumstances, a strong prima facie case for the grant of ad-interim reliefs without issuing notice to the Defendants, is made out. Unless reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff is likely to suffer injury. In view of what is stated in paragraph 24 of the plaint and paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion and in view of the above, I am satisfied that the object of granting the following reliefs would be defeated if notice of this application is given to the Defendants. There shall accordingly be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (d) and (g) of the Notice of Motion, which read as follows:... 3. Accordingly, the Court Receiver visited the business premises of the Defendants and has taken charge of the impugned products, labels etc. as set out in his report dated 27 th March, 2018. 4. Today when the matter is called out, the Defendant No.1 Mr. Gulam Moinuddin Khan is present in Court. He states that he has committed a mistake since he was misguided by his trademark agents Leonard Corporate Solutions Private Ltd., having their office at office No.8, 1 st Floor, Lucky Mansion, Opposite Manthan Plaza, Vakola Market,Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055. He has tendered an unconditional apology for the same. Initially I was of the view that the entire suit can be disposed off if the Defendant No.1 agrees to submit to a decree as prayed and further agrees to pay a certain amount towards costs and damages. However, the Learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff has drawn my attention to the fact that

kpd 4 / 5 NMCDL 596 2018.sxw though the Defendants have obtained license from the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (fssai) only with regard to tea powders, spices as well as confectionery and has not obtained any license qua the impugned product, he has on the label of the impugned product printed that the impugned product is fssai approved and has given license / registration No. 21515114000567 which is the license number he has obtained for tea powders, spices and confectionery. The Learned Advocate has also drawn my attention to a report available on the internet (https://www.nyooz.com/news/hyderabad/), wherein it is reported that three infants from Kalapathar locality in Old City at Hyderabad took ill and had to be hospitalized after drinking Frooti during iftar. The forensic report on whether the packeted drinks are spurious or not is awaited. The Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff has also pointed out that in the instant case, the contents / quality of the impugned product which the Defendant No.1 is trying to pass off as the product of Plaintiffs also needs to be tested because if the ingredients used in the impugned product are not in conformity with the required standards, the consumer may face serious health problems, more particularly the minors who are fond of mango drinks. The Advocate for the Plaintiff has also informed the Court that the Plaintiffs are in the process of filing a police complaint qua the manufacture of said goods by the Defendants inter-alia by misrepresenting that his product is fssai approved. 5. In view thereof, the Defendants are granted time upto 2 nd April, 2018 to appoint an Advocate in the matter. However, in the meantime, the following order is passed :-

kpd 5 / 5 NMCDL 596 2018.sxw (i) Upon the complaint being filed by the Plaintiff with the Local Police Station, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) under whose jurisdiction the local Police Station is situated shall get the complaint investigated, which will include obtaining a forensic report qua the contents of the impugned product, and shall thereafter, set the law in motion against those who have found to have committed an offence under the concerned statute. (ii) The DCP shall forward a copy of the forensic report to this Court on or before 15 th April, 2018, which will assist the Court in passing further orders in the matter. (iii) In the meantime, the earlier order dated 16 th March, 2018 shall continue to be in force. 6. Before this order was signed, Mr. Kini, Senior Associate from M/s. Khaitan & Co. has informed the Court that after the matter was heard on 28 th March, 2018, he received a call from Defendant No.1 Gulam Moinuddin Khan at around 8.30 p.m. stating that if the suit against him is not withdrawn, he shall commit suicide. The local Police Station shall therefore, make a note of such threat received by the Advocate. Stand over to 2 nd April, 2018. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )