Back
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Milaap Social Ventures India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Google India Private Limited – Respondent
ORDER
1. The captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2021 passed on I.A.No.8 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of plaint. The said amendment application is rejected by the trial Court which is under challenge.
2. The present petitioners/plaintiffs have instituted a bare suit for injunction seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants from passing off petitioners' trademark 'MILAAP'. The petitioners/plaintiffs in the plaint have claimed that they incorporated their office in Singapore and later in India and filed trademark application for registration of mark. It is specifically alleged in the plaint that petitioners first became aware that respondent No.2 is using petitioners mark 'MILAAP' to divert traffic to its own website crafted and designed by respondent No.1. The petitioners therefore claimed that they were compelled to issue cease and desist notice to respondent No.2 against using petitioners' mark as key word and stop passing off petitioners' trademark.
3. Pending consideration of the suit, the petitioners' mark 'MILAAP' came to be registered with Trademark No.342
Amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, and the cause of action for passing off and infringement were substantially identical.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amendment application for including averments regarding infringement of registered trademarks may be allowed if it is based on the same cau....
Amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are permissible if necessary for proper adjudication, do not change the fundamental nature of the case, and do not prejudice the other party.
Each act of trademark infringement constitutes a fresh cause of action, allowing the aggrieved party to file a new suit for ongoing violations.
Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates automatic stay of infringement proceedings when rectification is pending, and does not apply to passing-off claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
if there is no infirmity found in the order of the Trial Court, injunction against encashment of bank guarantee and letter of credit should not be granted except where fraud or irretrievable damage i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
