Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1556
High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
M/s. Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
M/s. Havells India Ltd.
I.A. No. 10946 of 2014 in CS(OS) No. 1720 of 2014
Decided On: 29-05-2014
For the Plaintiff:Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with S.K. Bansal, Ajay Amitabh Suman, Vikas Khera, Advocates.
For the Defendant:Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Sudeep Chatterjee, Bitika Sharma, Deepthi Mary Alexander, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of disparagement, where the court restrained the defendant from broadcasting the impugned advertisement and allowed continuation with certain deletions/erasures.
Headnote:
Disparagement - Injunction - Trade Mark Act - Section 2(1)(zg), Section 149 r/w Sec.151 CPC, Section 2(1)(zg), Section 2(1)(zg) - The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting, displaying, showing, broadcasting the impugned advertisement, in any media whatsoever including electronic media. The defendant was allowed to continue with the impugned advertisement if they deleted/erased certain contents.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages for disparagement and unfair trade practices against the defendant, alleging that the defendant's advertisement intentionally disparaged the plaintiff's electrical switches and unique design.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction, as the impugned advertisement fell within the principle of disparagement. The court also held that the defendant could continue with the advertisement if certain contents were deleted/erased.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged disparagement of the plaintiff's product in the defendant's advertisement, the intention to damage the plaintiff's product, and the balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle of disparagement, as discussed in previous judgments, and the finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction.
Final Decision: The court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting, displaying, showing, broadcasting the impugned advertisement, in any media whatsoever including electronic media. The defendant was allowed to continue with the impugned advertisement if they deleted/erased certain contents.
Manmohan Singh, J.
I.A. No.10947/2014 (exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
The application is disposed of.
I.A. No.10948/2014 (u/s 149 r/w Sec.151 CPC)
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the Court fee would be filed within one week. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the application is disposed of.
CS(OS) No.1720/2014 & I.A. No.10946/2014 (u/o XXXIX R.1 & 2 CPC)
1. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to the defendant. Mr.Sudeep Chatterjee, Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant accepts summons and notice. Let the written statement and reply be filed within two weeks, with advance copies thereof to the learned counsel for the plaintiff who may file the replication and rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.
The parties shall also file the documents along with the pleadings and shall complete the admission/denial of each other’s documents by way of affidavits which may be filed on or before the next date.
List this matter on 1st July, 2014 for framing of issues and consideration on injunction application as well as for directions for trial.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is pressing for an interim order, in the meanwhile. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the abovementioned suit for permanent injunction and damages for disparagement and unfair trade practices. Mr.Amit Sibal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff is pressing for interim orders in view of the urgency involved. Though, there is no caveat, still the defendant appeared through counsel who after obtaining instructions has no objection if the matter is heard by this Court.
5. At this stage, only a prima facie view is to be taken as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction or not. It is not denied by the defendant that the impugned advertisement is shown on Sony TV during IPL Cricket Matches which is at the stage of finals.
6. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and trade of wide range of electrical goods, electrical switches, accessories, appliances, electronic components. In the year, 1999, the plaintiff in the course of trade adopted the trade mark GM (word per se), the trade mark/label GM. The said trade mark/label/trade name is represented herein below:
7. It is alleged in the plaint that with the advent of e-commerce and the internet the plaintiff has been using the word/mark GM as a material part of its domain name and E-mail ID viz. www.gmmodular.com/, E-mail: info@gmmodular.com/ respectively. The screen shot of the plaintiff’s said domain name has been given as herein below:-
“IMAGE (GM) ” “IMAGES”
The screen shot of plaintiff’s said domain name namely www.gmmodular.com displaying the plaintiff’s electric switches under the trademark/label/design GM
7.1 In the year 2011, the plaintiff has created one such novel and original design in relation to its said product namely electrical switches. The design of the plaintiff is unique, original and aesthetic in nature. The said unique design of the electrical switches has been applied by the plaintiff in relation to GM electrical switches. The said unique design of the electrical switches does appeals to eye and has great aesthetic credentials (referred to as the said design). Since the year 2011, the plaintiff has been applying the said novel and original design in relation to its said electrical switches continuously and openly and is distinctive indicium of the plaintiff only. The true representation of the plaintiff’s said GM electrical switches under the said unique design has been given as herein below:
“IMAGE”
The plaintiff’s said electric switches under the
GM trademark/design/label
7.2 The plaintiff’s said goods and business are known recognized, demanded, sold and traded with reference t
