Back
AMIT BANSAL
Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Vasundhara Fashion Jewelery Llp – Respondent
JUDGMENT
I.A. 4154/2022 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of the CPC)
1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for grant of interim injunction.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT
2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application was issued on 15th March, 2022. However, no ad interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various dates and pleadings have been completed in the suit as well as the present application. The application was heard on 16th February, 2023, 16th March, 2023 and 20th April, 2023, when the judgment was reserved
CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT
3. The case set up in the plaint is as under:
3.1. The Plaintiff Company was established on 28th October, 1999 under the name and style of "VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS PRlVATE LIMITED" and has been continuously and uninterruptedly using the name "VASUNDHRA/VASUNDHRA JEWELLERS" since then as a tradename and trademark. The Plaintiff deals in jewellery and has its jewellery showroom in New Delhi.
3.2. The plaintiff first adopted the trademark "VASUNDHRA" in the year 1999 for jewe
The defendant was entitled to the benefit of defense under Section 35 of the Act as it had been using the mark 'VASUNDHARA' in a bona fide manner since 2001.
The judgment emphasizes that the exclusive right to use a trade mark is limited to what has been registered and cannot extend to common names. It also highlights the importance of distinctiveness, go....
The plaintiff failed to establish exclusive rights over the common name 'VASUNDHRA', resulting in dismissal of the injunction application due to lack of a prima facie case.
In trademark disputes, a plaintiff must establish goodwill to succeed in passing off actions, and demonstrating bona fide use prevails over prior use claims where underlying rights are transferred.
The court held that registration of trademarks does not grant exclusive rights over a common or partially generic term, emphasizing the need for distinctiveness to prevent confusion.
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to a permanent injunction for passing off its mark 'SANDHI SUDHA' and the consideration of the defendants' non-rep....
Infringement of trade mark - Business in infringement of a registered design or a mark or is guilty of passing off, such a business cannot be said to be carried on in accordance with law and no right....
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
