IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Jonas Woodhead And Sons India Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 350 of 2021 & I.A. 9560 of 2021
Decided On : 06-02-2023
Injunction - Trademark Infringement - The court granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's registered trademarks in relation to specific goods or services, based on a prima facie case made by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement by the defendant and sought a decree restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's trademarks and delivery-up, rendition of accounts, costs, and damages.
Finding of the Court:
The court made the ad interim injunction absolute, pending disposal of the suit, as the defendant expressed disinterest in using the trademark and did not object to the injunction being made absolute.
Issues: Trademark infringement, ad interim injunction, costs, and damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the defendant's statement expressing disinterest in using the trademark and the absence of objection to making the injunction absolute.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application, made the ad interim injunction absolute, and scheduled further proceedings for admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits.
ORDER (ORAL)
I.A. 9560/2021 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)
1. The present suit had been instituted by the plaintiff alleging infringement, by the defendant, of the plaintiff's registered trade marks "'VOLVO'" "[IMG]", in respect of Parabolic Leaf Springs 1st Axle, Parabolic Leaf Springs 2nd Axle, Bogie Rear, Bogie 32 Tons Rear, Shift FMX Parabolic Front or any other goods or services.
2. Accordingly, the plaint had sought a decree against the defendants, restraining them from using the aforesaid marks in respect of any goods or services or on any of the platforms on which they were having internet presence. The plaint further sought delivery-up, rendition of accounts, costs and damages.
3. While issuing summons in the suit, this Court, vide order dated 4th August 2021, granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction, restraining the defendants in the following terms:
"10. Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. Accordingly, defendant is restrained by an ex parte injunction from selling, manufacturing or in any manner advertising or dealing in any manner from using the mark `VOLVO', [IMG], and [IMG] or any other name/mark confusingly or deceptively similar thereto as a name/trademark in relation to Parabolic Leaf Springs T' Axle, Parabolic Leaf Springs 2nd Axle, Bogie Rear, Bogie 32 Tons Rear, Shift FMX Parabolic Front or any other goods or services, in any manner, including on its websites including www.woodheadpsrings.com. social media accounts, third party websites including but not limited to www.indiamart.com or any representation made online by the Defendant, its affiliates, subsidiaries and anyone acting for or on its behalf till further orders."
4. The aforesaid injunction is continuing till today.
5. On the last date of hearing, the statement of Mr. Abhishek Modi, director of the respondent, was recorded by the court. Mr. Modi has categorically stated, in the concluding paragraph of his statement, thus:
"I have been shown the brochure placed at page 40 of the Plaintiffs documents, and I state that the same was created sometime between 2016 to 2018 and it was per chance that products bearing the name `Volvo' got photographed by the photographer. However, this brochure has been discontinued. I state that most of the products are sold under the company's brand name i.e., `Woodhead'. Considering that the commercial vehicles which are manufactured by Volvo are mostly used in mines, it is only upon the distributors' request that the word `Volvo' is added on the products. After explaining to the distributors that the word Volvo cannot be added by the company, only the model number was being put on the products. Further, after the order passed by the Court, my company has completely stopped the use of the mark `Volvo'. In fact, my company does not have any interest in using the mark `Volvo' and it was only at the customers' request that the same was being put on the products."
6. As Mr. Modi has himself stated that the defendant is not interested in using the Volvo mark for any purpose whatsoever, Mr. Pravin Anand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the ad interim injunction granted by this court on 4th August 2021 may be made absolute pending disposal of the suit.
7. Mr. Jayant Kumar, learned Counsel for the defendant, does not object to this submission.
8. Accordingly, IA 9560/2021 is allowed by making the ad interim injunction granted by this Court on 4th August 2021 absolute, pending disposal of the suit.
9. Mr. Pravin Anand, however, submits that his client desires to press for costs and damages.
10. List before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for admission/denial of documents and marking of exhibits on 3rd March 2023, whereafter the matter would be placed before the Court for further orders.
11. The application stands disposed of.
12. Let this order be uploaded on the website of this Court within 24 hours.
The court may grant an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's trademarks if a prima facie case of trademark infringement is established and the defendant expresses....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the granting of an ex-parte ad interim injunction based on the prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, and the balance of conve....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to grant a summary judgment in cases where the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and fails ....
Infringement of well-known trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the grant of permanent injunction and damages as remedies.
The court affirmed the trademark's well-known status and granted interim protection against its unauthorized use, establishing a prima facie case of infringement by the defendant.
Settlement of disputes under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC and the court's authority to decree suits based on lawful settlement terms.
The court granted an ex parte injunction against defendants for trademark infringement, finding prima facie merit in the plaintiff's claim and recognizing potential irreparable harm.
Availability of alternative effective remedy and the importance of disclosing all relevant facts in legal proceedings
The judgment confirms the acknowledgment of trademark ownership and sets enforcement measures against infringement, emphasizing settlement agreements under the CPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.