Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Rana Steels – Appellant
Versus
Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
I.A. 18267/2023 (for withdrawal)
2. The present application has been filed by the ld. Counsel of the Plaintiff seeking discharge from the present matter on the ground that they are not receiving instructions from their client.
3. A perusal of the suit record would reveal that the Plaintiff- M/s. Rana Steels was granted an ex-parte injunction against the Defendant- M/s. Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd., vide order dated 14th August, 2007 against the use of the mark `RANA' by the Defendant. The said injunction was carried in appeal, by the Defendant, and was finally decided vide order dated 17th May 2012. The said order reads:
"1. The antagonist is M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. The protagonist is M/s Rana Steels.
2. The battle front was opened when M/s Rana Steels filed a suit alleging infringement of its trademark `RANA' by bringing to the notice of the Court that M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. was marketing similar products under the trademark `RANATOR'.
3. Both companies are admittedly selling steel rolled products, such as steel reinforcement bars, girders etc.
4. Application seeking interim injunction pen
The Plaintiff's longstanding use and recognition of the trademark 'EXIDE' was upheld, barring the Defendants from its use, leading to a permanent injunction and damages.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the infringement of a registered trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the entitlement to a permanent injunction and damages for the vio....
The court held that the concealment of material facts by the respondents did not warrant the dismissal of the suit or the vacation of the interim injunction, as the equities lay in favor of the respo....
Registered trademark owners have exclusive rights, but concurrent users may claim based on prior use and non-acquiescence.
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.
Trademark registered users have rights against similar marks when prior use and reputation are established, and deliberate infringement can lead to damages awarded.
The court confirmed trademark infringement, imposing strict penalties for contempt due to ongoing violations during injunction, requiring a rebranding to 'RMC' or 'RAAVI MASALA COMPANY'.
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....
Infringement of trade mark and passing off - Permanent injunction - Appellants/defendants are bound down to their statement, till disposal of suit before Commercial Court. Readiness with which appell....
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
