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

1997 Supreme(Del) 118

High Court Of Delhi
ARJIES ALUMINIUM UDYOG - Appellant
Versus
SUDHIR BATRA - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 130 of 1996
Decided On : 01/31/1997

Advocates Appeared:
G.D.Chugh, Mohan Vidhani, S.K.BANSAL

A suit under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, has a limited scope and object, and cannot be used to stay a suit for infringement of trade mark under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the issues in the two suits are not directly and substantially the same.

Headnote:

TRADE MARK - SECTION 120 OF THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - SUIT FOR DECLARATION THAT THREATS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ARE UNJUSTIFIABLE - DISTINCTION FROM SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE MARK - STAY OF SUIT UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - NOT PERMISSIBLE.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a suit under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, seeking a declaration that the respondent's threats of legal proceedings for infringement of the appellant's trade mark were unjustifiable. The respondent subsequently filed a suit on the Original Side of the High Court, alleging infringement of its own trade mark by the appellant. The appellant applied for a stay of the latter suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the issues in both suits were directly and substantially the same.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the suit under Section 120 had a limited scope and object, and that the issues arising for decision in that suit were not the same as those in the infringement suit. Therefore, the stay of the infringement suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was not permissible.

Issues: Whether the suit under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the infringement suit filed by the respondent involved directly and substantially the same matter in issue, warranting a stay of the latter suit under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, has a limited scope and object, which is to provide a remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings for infringement of a trade mark. A suit under Section 120 can only succeed if the defendant satisfies the Court that the trade mark is registered and that the acts in respect of which the proceedings were threatened constitute, or, if done, would constitute, an infringement of the trade mark. In contrast, a suit for infringement of trade mark is a wider action that seeks to protect the exclusive right to the use of a trade mark conferred by registration. The Court further held that the identity of matter in issue in the two suits is the determining test for the application of Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. A suit under Section 120 does not answer the question of whether the matter in issue in the two suits is directly and substantially the same in a way that would dictate a stay of the infringement suit.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Single Judge, refusing to stay the infringement suit.

R. C. Lahoti,j.

( 1 ) THE defendant has come up inappeal feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20. 2. 96 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court rejecting the defendant s application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking stay of the suit (S. No. 458/95) pending on the Original Side of the High Court until the previously instituted suit filed by the defendant (as plaintiff) in the District Court was decided.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to herein as appellant and respondent only and as they are arrayed in this appeal.

( 3 ) THE dispute relates to trade mark. The mark of the appellant is ARJIES. The mark of the respondent is ARCHIS. It is being claimed in respect of aluminium door and window fittings.

( 4 ) ON 13th December, 1994, the appellant has filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi a suit under Section 120 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for damages and for restraining groundless threats of legal proceedings. It is alleged therein that the appellant was the proprietor of ARJIES label having widely advertised and used the same as trade mark. The respondent was issuing groundless threats for legal proceedings to the appellant alleging that his mark was infringing the respondent s trade mark ARCHIS.

4. 1. The reliefs sought for in the suit pending in the Court-of District Judge, Delhi therein are as under : (i) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, successors and assigns and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendant from issuance of ground less threats for legal proceedings in connection with the use of the plaintiffs trade mark ARJIES label in relation to aluminium door and window fittings. (ii) For an order for damages caused to the plaintiff on account of issuance of groundless threats for legal proceedings. (iii) For an order of declaration that the trade mark ARJIES label of the plaintiff is not identical with or deceptively similar to the trade mark ARCHIS of the defendants and moreover, the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark ARJIES label on account of its honest adoption on 1. 9. 90 and continuous user thereafter. (iv) For an order for cost of proceedings. and (v) For such further order as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances and facts of the present suit.

4. 2. This suit pending in the Court of District Judge, Delhi would be referred to as the previous suit.

( 5 ) ON 21. 2. 95, the respondent has filed a suit on the Original Side of the High Court wherein he claims to be owner of the trade mark ARCHIS complaining of its infringement by the appellant having adopted user of the trade mark ARJIES which was phonetically and deceptively similar with the mark of the respondent.

5. 1. The following reliefs are sought for in the suit : (i) For permanent injunction against the defendant, its partners, servants, agents, stockists, dealers and all other persons acting on their behalf from selling or offering for sale or advertising the aluminium door and window fittings or any other goods which are builder s hardware made of ferrous/non ferrous metal under. the trade mark ARJIES amounting to the infringement of the trade mark ARCHIS No. 479648 of the plaintiff. (ii) For permanent injunction against the defendant, its partners, servants, agents, stockists, dealers and all other persons acting on their behalf for selling the aluminium door and window fittings or any other goods which are builder s hardware made of ferrous/non ferrous metal under the trade mark ARJIES amounting to the passing off. (iii) For permanent injunction against the defendant, and its partners from carrying on the business of the manufacturing and selling of the aluminium door and window fittings or any other goods which are builder s hardware made of ferrous/non ferrous metal under the trading style of which ARJIES is the part. (iv) For an order for the rendition of accounts of the profits illegally














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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