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

2012 Supreme(Del) 495

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Samsung Electronics Company Limited & Another
Versus
Kapil Wadhwa & Others
IA No.7774 of 2011 & IA No.10124 of 2011 in C.S. (OS). No.1155 of 2011
Decided on : 17-02-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:Pravin Anand with Dhruv Anand & Nischal Anand, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar, Eashan Ghosh and Shobhit Aggarwal, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to dispose of IA No.7774/2011 filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and IA No.10124/2011 filed under order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of interim order passed on 03.06.2011.

2. The brief factual matrix of the matter can be enunciated as under:

a) The Plaintiff no 1 is stated to be a company incorporated under the laws of Korea. The plaintiff No. 2 is stated to be company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Both the plaintiffs collectively stated to be a part of Samsung Group of Companies having 14 listed companies and 285 worldwide operations.

b) It is stated that the plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in electronic goods such colour televisions of all types, home appliances, washing machines, microwaves, air conditions, computers, printers and cartridges etc.

c) The plaintiffs have stated to earn revenues for the year 2009 around US$ 172.5 Billion and the net income was around US$ 13.8 Billion. The asset of the plaintiffs were valued as USD 294.5 Billion for the year 2004-2005.

d) The plaintiffs inform that it is one of leading companies in the electronic goods segment across the globe and its products are of world class quality goods. The plaintiffs have also informed about their business in India which was initiated since 1995 when the plaintiff No. 2 was formed. The plaintiff No. 2 enjoys a turnover of US 1 Billion in just over a decade of operations in India. All this has been done under the brand name and corporate of the plaintiffs namely SAMSUNG.

e) The plaintiffs have also informed about the extensive promotions carried out in promoting and popularizing the brand name SAMSUNG by them and due to the same and their worldwide nature of operation, the trade mark SAMSUNG as per the plaintiffs is the well known or famous trade mark.

f) The plaintiffs have registered the following the trade marks in India under the mark

SAMSUNG:


The Plaintiff No. 1 has licensed the use of Samsung trademark in India to Plaintiff No.2 vide a trademark agreement dated 8th July 2003. The said agreement has also been filed with the Trade Mark’s Registry for registration.

g) The grievance of the plaintiffs in the present case relates to the important business of manufacturing, selling and distribution of wide range of printers under the mark SAMSUNG by them and rampant problem of parallel importation especially carried out by the defendant No. 1 and 2 whereby the plaintiffs are deprived to carry out their legitimate business under the mark SAMSUNG.

h) The plaintiff explains the said business of printers which includes wide range of varieties of printers costing from Rs.5299/- to Rs.1,39,999/-. All these printers cater to diversified needs of the consumers across the India. The plaintiffs have stated that the printers sold in India by them are sold through the authorized channel of resellers and partners of the plaintiff No.2. Any third party who is not authorized by the plaintiff cannot legitimately sell, advertise the Samsung products in India.

i) The plaintiffs have also mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiffs are selling and advertising their products through website namely Samsung.com/in through which they intend to educate the customers of their varied range of products etc.

j) The defendant No. 2 is stated to be a company engaged in distributing, retailing and selling various types of computer hardware as well as periphericals. The defendant No. 3 appears to be retail outlet of the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 is added as the managing director for the defendant No. 2

k) The grievance as stated in the plaint is that in the month of March 2011, the plaintiffs received an information from market sources that the defendants were distributing, retailing and selling grey market printers of the plaintiffs in the market and not the ones supplied by the plaintiff No. 2. As per the said informati




























































































































































































































































































































































































































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