SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission - Appellant
Versus
Raman Gupta & Ors. - Respondents
CS (COMM) 133/2022;
Decided On : 04-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Advocate With Ms. Archita Nigam & Ms. Devyani Nath, Advocates, for the Appellant.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of registered trademarks and the grant of interim injunctions to prevent trademark infringement and potential harm to consumers.

Headnote:

Trademark Infringement - Khadi & Village Industries Commission - Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act of 1956 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC - Order XXXIX Rule 1&2

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff, Khadi & Village Industries Commission, sought an interim injunction against the Defendants for trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized use of the trademark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' and 'Charkha Logos' in relation to medical products.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction, as the unauthorized use of the trademark 'KHADI' for medical products raised concerns about quality control and could mislead consumers into believing an association with the Plaintiff.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Defendants' use of the trademark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' and 'Charkha Logos' constituted trademark infringement and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied the provisions of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act of 1956 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to assess the Plaintiff's rights as a registered proprietor of the trademark 'KHADI' and the potential harm caused by the Defendants' unauthorized use.

Final Decision: The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any products bearing the trademark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' or any related artistic works/word marks/logos used by the Plaintiff. The Defendants were also restrained from using the trade mark 'KHADI' in any form, the 'Charkha logo', and specific domain names and websites.

ORDER

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A. 3301/2022 (for exemption)

2. This is an application seeking exemption from filing original and clear copies of documents. Recording the Plaintiff's undertaking that the inspection of original documents shall be given, if demanded, or that the original documents shall be filed prior to the stage of admission/denial, the exemption is allowed.

3. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 3302/2022 (u/S 12A)

4. This is an application seeking exemption instituting pre-litigation mediation. In view of the orders passed in CS (COMM) 132/2022 titled Upgrad Education v. Intellipaat Software, the application is allowed and disposed of.

I.A. 3303/2022 (exemption from advance service to the Defendants)

5. In view of the fact that the Plaintiff has sought ex parte ad-interim injunction, exemption from advance service to the Defendants is granted.

6. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 3300/2022 (for leave to file additional affidavit)

7. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents. The additional documents, if any, shall be filed strictly in accordance with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

8. The application is disposed of.

CS (COMM) 133/2022

9. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

10. Issue summons to the Defendants through all modes upon filing of Process Fee.

11. The summons to the Defendants shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days from date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.

12. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt ofthe written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

13. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 11th April, 2022. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.

14. List before Court on 20th May, 2022.

I.A. 3566/2022 (u/O VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC)

15. This is an application on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC. By way of the present application, the Plaintiff seeks to implead M/s Khadi by Heritage Pvt. Ltd., which is a company incorporated on 3rd June, 2020, as Defendant No. 5.

16. The suit is at the stage of inception. One of the Defendants in the main suit, i.e., Defendant No. 2, is a director in the company which is now sought to be impleaded. The trade mark used by the said entity is also the same as the other Defendants and the partnership firm, i.e., 'KHADI BY HERITAGE'. Since the suit itself is yet to be registered, the application is allowed. The amended plaint and memo of parties filed with the application is taken on record. Let the amended plaint be moved to the 'Pleadings' folder and the old plaint be moved into a 'Miscellaneous' folder.

17. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. I.A. 3299/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 1&2)

18. The Plaintiff- Khadi & Village Industries Commission is a body established by a statute, i.e., Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act of 1956. It is the registered proprietor of various word marks and device marks bearing word 'KHADI' in Hindi and English, both in artistic form as also in logo form along with the 'Charkha Logos'.

19. The grievance of the Plaintiff in the present case is that the Defendants are using the trading style 'KHADI BY HERITAGE', the corporate name KHADI BY HERITAGE as also the mark 'KHADI BY HERITAGE' and the 'Charkha Logo' in various fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top