Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Suncity Sheets Private Limited – Respondent
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 injun
A licensee cannot claim disparagement of trademark without the owner present as a party; non-joinder does not justify the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of deceptive similarity of trademarks, acquisition of distinctiveness and secondary meaning of a name, and the use of a s....
The court affirmed that prior use of a registered trademark provides substantial grounds for an injunction against similar marks, emphasizing deceptive similarity effects on consumer perception.
To establish trademark infringement, the plaint must demonstrate use 'in the course of trade'; mere display of a mark without commercial activity does not satisfy this requirement.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
A plaintiff cannot file multiple suits for the same cause of action concurrently in different jurisdictions; it constitutes forum shopping and is impermissible under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
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
