IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
M/s Rana Steels - Appellant
Versus
M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 565 of 2016 and I.A. 18267 of 2023
Decided On : 20-09-2023
Trademark Dispute - Trademark Infringement - [Order dated 14th August, 2007, Order dated 17th May 2012, Contempt of Court Act] - The court discussed the infringement of the trademark 'RANA' by the Defendant and the subsequent settlement allowing the Defendant to use the mark 'RANINDIA' with certain conditions. The court also addressed the issue of contempt and the need for evidence in determining the violation of the injunction order.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought discharge from the matter due to lack of instructions from their client. The Defendant was granted an ex-parte injunction against the use of the mark 'RANA' and subsequently settled to use the mark 'RANINDIA' with certain conditions. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant violated the injunction order by selling products under the mark 'RANA TOR'. The matter remained pending for over 15 years.
Finding of the Court:
The Plaintiff was discharged, and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Costs of Rs.10,00,000/- were imposed on the Plaintiff, with Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the Defendant and Rs.5,00,000/- to be deposited to the Delhi High Court Legal Service Committee.
Issues: Trademark infringement, violation of injunction order, non-prosecution of the suit
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Plaintiff had not pursued the suit for over 15 years, and costs were imposed due to the substantial time and resources expended by the Defendant and the court.
Final Decision: The Plaintiff was discharged, and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Costs of Rs.10,00,000/- were imposed on the Plaintiff.
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 pending decision in the suit was considered and decided by the learned Single Judge against M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. and it has been held that the trademark adopted by M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. i.e. `RANA TOR' was deceptively similar to the trademark used by M/s Rana Steels i.e. the trademark `RANA'.
5. Injunction granted is to restrain M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. to sell its products using the trademark `RANA TOR' or any other mark deceptively similar to the trademark `RANA' of M/s Rana Steels.
6. Highlighting that before the interim injunction application was disposed of on March 25, 2008, M/s Rana Steels had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on August 14, 2007 which had enured till it was confirmed, issue of stock weighing approx. 3000 MT with M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. came up for consideration at a subsequent stage, and alleging that M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. had sold the aforesaid stock bearing the trademark `RANA TOR', it was prayed to the Court that action be taken against the Directors of the company for having violated the injunction granted.
7. Another grievance was made. The same related to M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. selling its products under the trademark `RANINDIA'.
8. Since the injunction granted restrained M/s Ran India steels Pvt. Ltd. to sell its products under the trademark `RANA TOR' or a mark deceptively similar to the trademark `RANA', issue was re-debated.
9. Vide impugned order dated January 14, 2010, challenged in FAO(OS) No.81/2010, finding returned is that the trademark `RANINDIA' is deceptively similar to the trademark `RANA'. The consequence is that M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors being prima-facie held to be in violation of the order passed restraining them from selling its products under the trademark `RANA TOR' or a trademark deceptively similar to the trademark `RANA'.
10. During arguments in the two appeals today, a suggestion emanated from the Court with a request to the learned counsel for the parties to settle the dispute pertaining to M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. carrying on its business under the trademark `RANINDIA'. The response is positive.
11. It is agreed that M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. could sell its products under the trademark `RANINDIA', written as one word without any space between the word `RAN' and the word `INDIA'. The word `RANINDIA' would be written in same font and styling. It is further agreed that in the products sold, the aforesaid trademark would be etched, embossed or printed, as the case may be. But on the publicity material, M/s Ran India Steels Pvt. Ltd. would use the trademark aforenoted in conjunction with a pictorial description of the arm of a human body with muscles, as represented on the Registered Trademark No.160.3837 of M/s Ran In
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....
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.