Point of Law : Trade mark – Copyright - delay per se may not always be sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff to grant of an interim order.

JUDGMENT :

Jayant Nath, J.

IA.No.3527/2021

1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Issue an ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant its directors, proprietors, partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, employees, agents and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them from manufacturing, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner its products/goods under the deceptively similar or identical trademark/labels "Rajdhani, (Device of Rajdhani in English), IMAGE (Device of Rajdhani in Hindi) IMAGE of the Plaintiff directly or indirectly and doing any other act that may lead to confusion, deception amounting to infringement of Plaintiffs trademark;

b. restrain the Defendant its directors, proprietors, partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, employees, agents and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them, by or under them during pendency of the proceedings from using the domain name “rajdhanigroup.com” or any other domain name/trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff; and

c. Restrain the defendants its directors, proprietors, partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, employees, agents and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under them from disposing off or dealing with their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties and their stock-in-trade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of the Hon’ble court during the course of proceedings and on the defendant disclosure thereof and which the defendant is called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the plaintiff as the Plaintiff is not aware of the same as per section 135 (2) (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it could adversely affect the Plaintiff’s ability to recover the costs and preliminary reliefs thereon.”

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that in 1966 late Shri Sundar Lal Jain (father of Shri R.K. Jain and Director of the plaintiff company) originally conceived and adopted the trademark/label ‘Rajdhani’ (device of Rajdhani in English) IMAGE, (device of Rajdhani in hindi) IMAGE for products like Pulses, Rice, Aata, Maida, Sooji, Rawa, Tea, Coffee, Cocoa, Sugar, Salt, Spices, Basmati Rice, Vinegar, Flavors, Essence for Food, Glucose, Chewing & Bubble Gum, Baking and Custard Powder, Honey, Sauces, Bakery Products, Confectionary, Sweets, Namkeen, Biscuits, Pastry, Cakes, Ice Cream, Peanut Paper, Noodles, roasted Edible Products, Potato Wafers And Chips, Rusk, Bakery Products, Flakes, Tapioca, Yeast, Pepper, Sabudana, Mustard, Sattu, and Corn. Subsequently, the plaintiff company was formed in 1983 and carried forward the said business under the said trademark/label ‘Rajdhani’. It is clarified that the said trademarks/labels are owned by the plaintiff company and ‘Rajdhani Flour Mills Limited’ a sister concern of the plaintiff company vide settlement agreement between the legal heirs of late Shri Sundar Lal Jain executed on 31.03.2009. As per the said settlement agreement, the plaintiff company has ownership rights for the brand Rajdhani for manufacturing, trading and marketing of Aata, Maida, Sooji and other wheat products (bulk or retail and in any pack) and all kinds of pulses in pack of half and one kg only excluding Chana Dal. The sister concern M/s Rajdhani Flour Mills Limited has ownership rights in the brand ‘Rajdhani’ in respect of manufacturing, trading and marketing of besan, Chana dal and other gram related products in both wholesale and in consumer packs. The plaintiff and Rajdhani Flour Mills have co-existing rights in the trademark/labels in question.

3. It is pleaded that the plaintiff company i