Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Choice Hotels International, Inc. – Appellant
Versus
Oravel Stays Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A. 7356/2023 (seeking condonation of delay)
1. By this application, the defendant seeks condonation of delay of 29 days in filing reply to I.A. 16954/2022.
2. The application is not opposed by Ms. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.
I.A. 7357/2023 (seeking condonation of delay)
4. This application seeks condonation of delay of 168 days, in filing reply to I.A. 16848/2021.
5. Ms. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff does not oppose this application.
6. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
I.A. 16955/2022 (under Order XIIIA read with Section 151 of the CPC)
7. This is an application under Order XIIIA of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking decreeing of the suit vis-a-vis Defendants 2 to 4 in terms of the prayers contained in the suit.
8. The grievance of the plaintiff, in the present suit, relates to alleged infringement, by the defendants, of the plaintiff's registered trademarks, which stand reproduced in a tabular fashion in para 27 of the plaint. The plaintiff holds registrations of the following marks:
| S. No. | Regist | |||
The plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction against the defendants due to infringement of registered trademarks.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
Injunction – Grant or refusal of interim injunction is absolutely discretionary power of Commercial Court keeping in mind material available before it.
The trial court must assess the prima facie tenability of a plea of trademark invalidity in infringement actions, underpinning the jurisdictional responsibility under Section 124 of the Trademarks Ac....
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.
Amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are permissible if necessary for proper adjudication, do not change the fundamental nature of the case, and do not prejudice the other party.
The court granted a summary judgment for trademark infringement due to the defendants' failure to contest the claims, establishing the plaintiff's rights in the 'MILLENNIUM' mark.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of prior use and the principles of honest adoption, delay, and acquiescence in trademark disputes.
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
