RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, AMIT BANSAL
AMPA Cycles Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jagmohan Ratra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Amit Bansal, J.
[Via Video Conferencing]
1. This appeal, under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), impugns the Order dated 17th March, 2021 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, confirming the interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in I.A. No.12625/2020 under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2, CPC and dismissing I.A. No.1394/2020 under Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC of the appellant/defendant, M/s Ampa Cycles Private Limited (company) in CS(COMM) No.569/2020 filed against the appellant/defendant company for permanent injunction to restrain passing off of trade mark and for ancillary reliefs.
2. The appeal first came up before this Bench on 18th May, 2021 when the counsel for respondent/plaintiff, appearing on advance notice stated that the complete paper book had not been received, and the matter was adjourned to 28th May, 2021, on which date the counsels were heard and orders were reserved. Both parties were also granted liberty to file notes of arguments along with copies of judgments to be relied upon, which have been duly filed by both sides.
3. It must be noted that init
Li Tse Shi Vs. Pong Tsoi Ching
Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors.
Thayyullathil Kunhikannan & Ors. Vs. Thayyullathil Kalliani & Ors.
Passing off of trade mark - Proprietary rights - Interim injunction - Appellant/defendant company, even though it has started using trade mark ‘AMPA’ only in 2018, has established substantial sales a....
Passing off is a tort action that prevents misrepresentation of goods or services as those of another trader. Prima facie case of passing off requires elements such as misrepresentation, prospective ....
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
The court ruled that despite the plaintiff's prior usage claim, the distinct markets of the parties and lack of confusion led to the dismissal of the injunction request.
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
Infringement of trade mark and passing off - Permanent injunction - Appellants/defendants are bound down to their statement, till disposal of suit before Commercial Court. Readiness with which appell....
The trademark 'AMUL' is recognized as well-known and entitled to broad protection against identical or deceptively similar marks to prevent consumer confusion, irrespective of the goods involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's mark 'AMPM' did not meet the threshold to be considered a well-known mark and the defendants' use of the impugned mark for int....
A plaintiff seeking an injunction must disclose all material facts; failure to do so may preclude equitable relief even if a prior user claim is made.
Concealment of material facts while obtaining ex parte injunction disentitles the plaintiff from equitable relief of injunction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.