Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
Inter Ikea Systems B V – Appellant
Versus
Italica Floor Tiles Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
I.A. 3466/2020 (u/O IX Rule 13 CPC) & I.A.3467/2020 (u/S 151 CPC) in CS(COMM) 628/2019
1. In the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up, an ex parte decree was passed this Court vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2020 against the defendants i.e. the applicants herein, which is subject matter of challenge of the above captioned first applicants.
2. By the above captioned second application, applicants/defendants are seeking stay of order dated 05.12.20219 vide which ex parte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiffs and against the applicants/defendants as well as order and judgment dated 31.01.2020, vide which suit was ex parte decreed against the applicants/defendants.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/defendants had submitted that defendants are in the business of making Floor tiles and based out of Morbi, Gujrat under the name and style of “Italica”. According to applicants/defendants “Italica” came into existence in t
Courts may in the interest of justice, set aside dismissal order or ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent l....
A party should not suffer for the inaction or negligence of their advocate, and every party has the right to be heard in a suit.
Trademark infringement and passing off can be established based on the use of deceptively similar marks and failure to comply with interim injunction orders.
The failure to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance and to justify extensive delays in filing applications leads to the dismissal of motions to set aside ex-parte judgments.
The court emphasized that misleading statements in seeking ex-parte injunctions undermine judicial integrity, warranting vacating such orders.
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
An injunction obtained under misrepresentation cannot be vacated without proven suppression of material facts; established trademark rights remain effective despite prior lawsuits.
Trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was established based on the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the defendants' use of a mark similar to the plaintiff....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
