JUDGMENT :

I.A. 5027/2022

1. This judgment disposes of the present application, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), filed by Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. (JIPL) seeking to be impleaded as Plaintiff 2 in the present suit in which, as of now, Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. (occasionally referred to, hereinafter, as “JSHL”) is the sole plaintiff.

2. I have heard Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Counsel for the defendants, at length on the application.

The plaint

3. The plaintiff alleges that the mark of the defendants infringes the and trade marks, in which the plaintiff holds valid and subsisting registrations in various classes.

4. The impugned mark of the defendants is clearly not identical to the registered trade marks of the plaintiff. The plaint, however, alleges that the very use of the word “JINDAL”, by the defendants, infringes each of the plaintiff’s registered trade marks. The plaint further alleges that the defendants are seeking, by use of their mark, to pass off their products as the products of the plaintiffs. Predicated on these allegations, the plaint seeks a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and all others acting on their behalf from using the mark or the word “JINDAL” in any form. Additionally, the suit also prays for delivery-up, rendition of accounts, damages and costs.

5. IA 15428/2021 was also filed by the plaintiff with the suit, seeking interlocutory injunctive reliefs.

6. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 26th November 2021, I expressed a tentative view that, given the anti-dissection principle contained in Section 17, [17. Effect of registration of parts of a mark. –

(1) When a trade mark consists of several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive right to the use of the trade mark taken as a whole.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a trade mark—

(a) contains any part –

(i) which is not the subject of a separate application by the proprietor for registration as a trade mark; or

(ii) which is not separately registered by the proprietor as a trade mark; or

(b) contains any matter which is common to the trade or is otherwise of a non-distinctive character,

the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade mark so registered.] of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the fact that the plaintiff did not have any word mark registration for JINDAL and the other features which distinguished the composite device marks of the defendants from the registered trade marks of the plaintiff, it was difficult, at an ad interim stage, to hold that the impugned mark of the defendants was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.

7. Following this, on 1st December 2021, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff would be satisfied if the prayer for interim injunction was taken up after a reply was filed by the defendants to the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC.

8. Further orders have been passed in the present proceedings, to which it is not necessary to allude.

The present application

9. JIPL seeks, by means of the present application, to be added as Plaintiff 2 in the suit.

10. JIPL claims to trace its roots to the OP Jindal Group, which is the promoter group of the plaintiff-JSHL. The plaintiff company holds 50% shares in JIPL.

11. JIPL claims to have been using, since 1972, the brand name “JINDAL” for its business activities, and to have expended huge amounts to advertise the said name and assimilate goodwill therein. JIPL claims to be the proprietor of the word marks “JINDAL”, “JINDAL COR” and “JINDAL ACL PROTECTION” as well as the device marks and in various classes. As such, unlike the plaintiff JSHL, JIPL claims to be the registered proprietor of, inter alia, the “JINDAL” word mark.

12. The application a