Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 1867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
M/s. Psychotropics India Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Syncom Healthcare Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (M) No.1409 of 2019; Civil Miscellaneous Application No.42656 of 2019
Decided On : 30-09-2019
Ashok Mittal, Adv., Palak Arora, Adv.
The appointment of Local Commissioners is crucial in enforcing trademark infringement decrees, especially in pharmaceutical matters, to ensure proper investigation and enforcement of Court orders.
Headnote:
Trademark Infringement - Appointment of Local Commissioners - Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, Order XXVI Rule 18A CPC - Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals (2001) 5 SCC 73
Fact of the Case:
The Decree Holder filed a suit for infringement of trademark against the Judgment Debtor. The Decree Holder sought appointment of Local Commissioners in the execution proceedings to conduct a seizure of the infringing goods, which was rejected by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appointment of Local Commissioners was necessary to ensure proper investigation into the activities of the Defendant and to give effect to the Court's orders. The Court also emphasized the importance of appointing Local Commissioners in trademark infringement cases, especially in pharmaceutical matters.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court's rejection of the application for appointment of Local Commissioners in the execution proceedings was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 18A CPC apply to execution proceedings, and the appointment of Local Commissioners is essential to enforce trademark infringement decrees, especially in pharmaceutical matters.
Final Decision: The Court appointed Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the Judgment Debtor, seize infringing products, inspect accounts, and take necessary actions to enforce the decree. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the execution petition in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
The Petitioner - M/s Psychotropics India Ltd. is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30th August, 2019, by which an application seeking appointment of Local Commissioners in the execution proceedings has been rejected by the Trial Court.
2. The background of the case is that the Petitioner/Decree Holder (hereinafter 'Decree Holder') filed a suit for infringement of trademark against the Respondent/Judgment Debtor - M/s Syncom Healthcare Ltd. (hereinafter 'Judgement Debtor'). The said suit was decreed vide order dated 22nd December, 2018. The operative portion of the decree reads as under:
"8. For the aforesaid reasons, the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off and rendition of account etc. against the defendant as claimed in the suit. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff is decreed. Plaintiff is, hereby, entitled to followings:-
Decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his principal officers, directors, agents, franchisees, servants, licensees and all other acting for and on behalf, from making, selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing in any goods or services using the plaintiff trademark CTZ-10 or any other mark/name which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark CTZ-10 or containing the word CTZ-10 otherwise and from doing any other thing, whereby directly or indirectly infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks CTZ-10 as claimed in the plaint.
Decree of rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendant by reason of passing off their goods and/or business as the goods and business of the plaintiff.
Cost of the suit is awarded in favour of plaintiff."
3. It is the submission of ld. counsel for the Decree Holder that the Judgment Debtor did not abide by the decree, leading to the filing of the execution petition. In the execution petition, the Decree Holder sought appointment of Local Commissioners in order to conduct a seizure of the infringing goods. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that there was no justified reason for appointment of Local Commissioners. The operative portion of the impugned order is set out hereinbelow:
"However, I am of the considered opinion that such appointment should always be in consonance with the object of the order to be executed, directions which are mentioned in the decree. It is submitted by the counsel for the DH that at this stage, he is not pressing for the execution of relief of rendition of account and only other relief i.e. decree for injunction are to be pressed at this stage.
Considering the submissions made by the DH, it is therefore, reflected that whatever order is required to be passed for facilitating the execution of decree, it has to commensurate with its object which is in consonance with the procedure to be followed for execution of decree for injunction. As per Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, a decree of injunction can be executed by issuance of warrants of attachment of property on by issuance of warrants of arrest. Hence, Local Commissioner can be appointed but to facilitate the procedure for achieving the execution of warrant of attachment or warrant of arrest, as the case may be. It does not include, in my considered opinion, appointment of Local Commissioner to seize the goods of JD which are infringing the trademark of the DH. Such an attempt is always made during pendency of a trial to collect evidence pertaining to infringement done by JD/defendant. That stage is now over. More so, DH himself is not pressing his relief for rendition of account, at this stage, as alleged by him. Above all, JD is residing outside the territorial limits of this Court for which only option available to this Court is to proceed ahead as per Section 39 CPC. Hence, no Local Commi
