Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 917
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, J.
Mittal Electronics - Appellant
Versus
Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Suit (Comm) No. 60 of 2020
Decided On : 09-09-2020
Sandeep Sethi, Advocate, Mohan Vidhani, Advocate, Rahul Vidhani, Advocate, Akhil Agarwal, Advocate, Jai Sai Deepak, Advocate, Meenakshi Ogra, Advocate, Niharika Sanadhya, Advocate, Preetpal, Advocate
A plaintiff cannot obtain an ex parte injunction by concealing material facts.
Headnote:
The plaintiff, a manufacturer of home appliances, sought an injunction against the defendant, a manufacturer of water purifiers, for infringement of its trademark 'SUJATA'. The plaintiff claimed that it had been using the mark since 1980 and had obtained registrations in various classes, including class 11 for water purifiers. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that it had been using the mark since 2008 and had obtained a registration in class 11 for water purifiers in 2012. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff had concealed material facts, such as the existence of the defendant's registration, in order to obtain the ex parte injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Mittal Electronics, filed a suit against the defendant, Sujata Home Appliances, for infringement of its trademark 'SUJATA'. The plaintiff claimed that it had been using the mark since 1980 and had obtained registrations in various classes, including class 11 for water purifiers. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that it had been using the mark since 2008 and had obtained a registration in class 11 for water purifiers in 2012. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff had concealed material facts, such as the existence of the defendant's registration, in order to obtain the ex parte injunction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had concealed material facts, such as the existence of the defendant's registration, in order to obtain the ex parte injunction. The court also found that the plaintiff had not been using the mark 'SUJATA' for water purifiers, while the defendant had been using the mark since 2008 and had obtained a registration in 2012. The court therefore modified the ex parte injunction to allow the defendant to continue to manufacture and sell water purifiers under the mark 'SUJATA'.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had concealed material facts in order to obtain the ex parte injunction? 2. Whether the plaintiff had been using the mark 'SUJATA' for water purifiers? 3. Whether the defendant had been using the mark 'SUJATA' for water purifiers and had obtained a registration in 2012?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had concealed material facts, such as the existence of the defendant's registration, in order to obtain the ex parte injunction. The court also found that the plaintiff had not been using the mark 'SUJATA' for water purifiers, while the defendant had been using the mark since 2008 and had obtained a registration in 2012. The court therefore modified the ex parte injunction to allow the defendant to continue to manufacture and sell water purifiers under the mark 'SUJATA'.
Final Decision: The court modified the ex parte injunction to allow the defendant to continue to manufacture and sell water purifiers under the mark 'SUJATA'.
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. - I.A. 1751/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
I.A. 4098/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC-by defendant No.1)
1. The plaintiff Mittal Electronics through its partner have filed the present suit inter alia seeking a decree of injunction against the defendants, their directors, partners etc. from manufacturing, purchasing or selling the home appliances and other accessories under the trademark ''Star SUJATA'' or ''SUJATA'' or any other identical or deceptively similar mark or corporate name, domain name and email address as the same not only violated its statutory right by way of the registration of the trademark but also amounted to passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff besides seeking cancellation of the domain name, declaring the plaintiff''s trademark as a Well Known mark and delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages etc.
2. In the suit, the plaintiff impleaded ''SUJATA'' Home Appliances (P) Ltd. with its addresses at Delhi, Bhatinda, Punjab as defendant No.1, Gorani Industries Ltd. at Indore, Madhya Pradesh as defendant No.2, Asija Electricals at Sirsa, Haryana as defendant No.3 and Radiant Industries at Chandigarh as defendant No.4. It was stated that defendant No.1 was the main contesting defendant whereas the defendant Nos.2 and 4 were the manufacturer of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 was the dealer of the goods of defendant No.1 under the infringing trademark.
3. In the suit, the plaintiff stated that the predecessor of the plaintiff adopted the trademark ''SUJATA'' in the year 1980 which business was gradually expanded to electrical goods and home appliances including Mixer, Grinder, Grater, Shredder, Chopper, Mincer, Kneader, Atta Chakki, Electric Spin Drier, Electric Waste Dispenser, Electric Flat Iron, Heating, Cooling Ventilating, Steam Generating and Cooling Appliances. It was claimed that from the year 1991 to 2018 the plaintiff is the owner of the registered trademark ''SUJATA'' in various classes including class-7, 8, 9, 11 and 35. Besides the registrations already there, several applications of the plaintiff for the registration of the trademark ''SUJATA'' in different classes are also pending. Plaintiff claims that it has huge sales under the trademark ''SUJATA'' and was also spending substantial amount on advertising.
4. Plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff came to know about the defendant No.1 using the mark ''SUJATA'' for Geysers when one of the technician of the plaintiff visited a premises to repair the geyser and got to know that the Geyser under the trademark ''SUJATA'' was not manufactured by the plaintiff. Consequently, when the suit came up before this Court for hearing on 7th February, 2020 this Court in I.A. 1751/2020 under Order XXXI Rule 1 and 2 CPC passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using ''Star SUJATA''/''SUJATA'' or any other identical or deceptively similar trademark in terms of prayer in para-36 of the application and also restrained the defendants from using the domain names www.sujatahomeappliances.com and www.sujataro.com and the email address till the next date of hearing. This Court also appointed Local Commissioners to visit the five premises mentioned above and the reports of the Local Commissioners were received therein.
5. On receipt of summons and pursuant to compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC defendant No.1 filed an application being I.A.3612/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC on 11th March, 2020 before this Court. However, the said application could not be listed due to lock down, hence, the defendant No.1 filed fresh application being I.A. No.4098/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC which came up for hearing on 1st June, 2020. I.A. 3612/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on 9th June, 2020 in view of a fresh application being I.A. No.4098/2020 for the same relief being filed. The defendant No.1 sought variation of the interim injunction granted by this Court and po
