SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Del) 1483

High Court Of Delhi
SAKALAIN MEGHJI - Appellant
Versus
BM HOUSE (INDIA) LIMITED - Respondent
Interim Application 6940 of 2001
Decided On : 10/10/2001

Advocates Appeared:
PRAVIN ANAND, S.K.MITTAL, SHANTHA DEVI RAMAN

The central legal point established is the requirement to prove trans-border reputation and goodwill in a passing off action, as per the principles of passing off outlined in 1979 AC 731 and 1970 2 SCR 222.

Headnote:

Trademark - Passing off - Order XXXIX Rule 4 code of Civil Procedure - 1979 AC 731 - 1970 2 SCR 222 - 1996 PTC 646 - 1999 PTC 775 - Suit No. 2732 of 1999 - 1990 (Supp) SCC 727

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed for permanent injunction against the defendant for passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright of the magazine 'Wedding Affair'. The defendant sought vacation of the injunction order. The plaintiff claimed trans-border reputation and exclusive rights to the name 'Wedding Affair'. The defendant argued lack of evidence for trans-border reputation and continuity of publication.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish trans-border reputation and goodwill in India, essential for a passing off action. The plaintiff's claim of sales in India lacked supporting evidence. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction and vacated the interim order dated 6/08/2001.

Issues: Dispute over passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright, lack of evidence for trans-border reputation, continuity of publication, and balance of convenience.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of passing off as per 1979 AC 731 and 1970 2 SCR 222, emphasizing the need to establish trans-border reputation and goodwill. Lack of evidence for sales in India and trans-border reputation led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction.

Final Decision: The plaintiff's application for ad interim injunction was dismissed, and the interim order dated 6/08/2001 was vacated.

A. K. SIKRI

( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose of both the applications i. e. IA. 6940/2001 and IA. 7311/ 2001. IA. 6940/2001 is filed by the plaintiff for ad-interim injunction whereas IA. 7311/2001 is filed by the defendant seeking vacation of injunction order dated 6/8/2001. Both the applications were therefore heard together.

( 2 ) THE suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction in respect of passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright and for damages and delivery up. Subject matter of the suit are two magazines, one published by the plaintiff and other published by the defendant- both titled "wedding Affair". The case of the plaintiff is that his magazine is published from London and circulated in most parts of the world including India and that the defendant has started its publication with the same name infringing his trade mark and copyright.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter came up for preliminary hearing on 3/8/2001, notice in the application was issued for 6/8/2001. Notice was duly served on the defendant. However, the defendant did not appear on 6/8/2001. Having regard to the averments made in the plaint as well as in IA. 6940/2001 and in the absence of any opposition, order dated 6/8/2001 was passed restraining the defendant, its dealers, representatives etc. from directly or indirectly using or adopting the name wedding Affair on any of its publication amounting to passing off of. the publication in the name of the plaintiff. The defendant was also restrained from adopting the artistic work of the plaintiff in any manner that may constitute unfair competition/unfair trade practice and infringement of copyright of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter defendant filed IA. 7311/2001 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 code of Civil Procedure. It was listed on 14/8/2001. Notice of this application was directed to be issued to the plaintiff through counsel, returnable on 5/09/2001. On 5/9/2001 it was recorded that although the plaintiff is served, there is no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. However the matter was deferred to 7/9/2001. As nobody appeared on behalf of the plaintiff on 7/9/2001, the order dated 6/8/2001 was suspended. After this order was passed, counsel for the plaintiff appeared in the afternoon session and submitted that there was no service upon him because of which he could not appear in this case. At his request, matter was listed on 10/92001. There was much controversy regarding service of defendant s application on plaintiff s counsel. However, instead of addressing this controversy, it was thought fit to hear both the applications on merits and decide the same. In these circumstances, arguments were heard on there applications thereafter on different dates.

( 5 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that his magazine wedding Affair is a unique publication which offers its readers a wealth of information regarding Western and Asian Bridal habits and innovations and developments within the wedding industries. First issue of this publication was brought, out in February, 1994 and since then the plaintiff has published, sold and distributed regularly its subsequent issues. The magazine is still being published and continues to be published till date. In last seven years its. turnover is approximately 15 lacks Sterling pounds which speaks volumes about the popularity and acceptability of the said publication. The plaintiff has made huge investment on advertisements and promotion of this publication which is widely distributed in U. K. as well as other countries including India. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of trade mark in respect of the magazine named wedding Affair by virtue of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user. He also owns copyrights in respect of contents printed in his publication and, therefore, he has exclusive right to use the name wedding Affair . The name wedding Affair was in novatively selected by him. The magazine is also registered vide r
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top