Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. Rajive Bhalla, ld. Sr. counsel for the Defendants raises a preliminary objection that the present suit is a contractual dispute and not a trademark dispute as it arises out of the franchise agreements dated 22nd February, 2019 and 11th July, 2021. He submits that the same is admitted by the Plaintiff in its Replication to the written statement of Defendant nos. 1-2. It is pointed out by Mr. Bhalla, ld. Sr. counsel that the Plaintiff clearly states in the Replication that the present suit is not in relation to a trademark dispute as there is a suit which has already been filed in respect of the trademark registration and common law rights before the Commercial Court, Saket being M/s Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Garib Nawaz Industries Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 607/ 2022, between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.5.
3. Mr. Ravi Gupta submits that the present suit is based on the Franchisee agreement by which the Defendant no.1 was given the right to use the Plaintiff's intellectual property as defined in the agreement. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the present suit. The
Territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement suits can be established based on alleged marketing actions in the jurisdiction, upheld by assuming the truth of the plaint's claims pending trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the concept of 'carries on business' in the context of a plaintiff under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sect....
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.
A party cannot take contradictory stands in the same case and cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts. Both parties must be ad idem for arbitration to proceed.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes related to intellectual property rights and the use of unregistered mark/names fall under the category of commercial disputes as p....
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
