IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 226 of 2023 and I.A. 7292 of 2023, 7293 of 2023, 14861 of 2023, 15230 of 2023 and 15231 of 2023
Decided On : 25-09-2023
Trademark Dispute - Franchise Agreement - Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 - [Trademarks, Contracts, Intellectual Property Rights] - The court discussed the definition of Intellectual Property Rights under the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and the wide definition of Intellectual Property in the franchise agreements. The court held that the present suit falls within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court IP Division due to the nature of the dispute and the agreements involved.
Fact of the Case:
The Defendants raised a preliminary objection that the present suit is a contractual dispute and not a trademark dispute. The Plaintiff argued that the suit is based on the Franchisee agreement by which the Defendant no.1 was given the right to use the Plaintiff's intellectual property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present suit falls within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court IP Division due to the nature of the dispute and the agreements involved. The court also noted the willingness of some Defendants to perform the franchise agreements and become franchisees of the Plaintiff, while the Plaintiff expressed willingness to negotiate with all the Defendants' outlets to become franchisees.
Issues: The main issue was whether the present suit is a contractual dispute or a trademark dispute, and whether it falls within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court IP Division.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the definition of Intellectual Property Rights under the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and the wide definition of Intellectual Property in the franchise agreements to determine the nature of the dispute and the court's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court directed the parties to remain present on the next date of hearing to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution, and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
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 Court has heard submissions on the preliminary objection raised.
4. The definition of the Intellectual Property under the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 is as under:
"(i) "Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) subject matter" for the purpose of these Rules, shall include:
i. Matters pertaining to Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, Geographical Indications, Plant Varieties, Designs, Semiconductor integrated circuit layout-designs, Traditional Knowledge and all rights under common law, if any, associated therewith;
ii Matters relating to passing off, acts of unfair competition, disparagement, comparative advertising etc.;
iii. Protection of trade secrets, confidential information and related subject matters;
iv. Tortious actions related to privacy and publicity rights involving intellectual property issues;
v. Matters pertaining data exclusivity, domain names and other matters relating to data protection involving intellectual property issues, as also those arising under the Act(s) as defined in Rule 2(a);
vi. Matters involving internet violations relating to any of the subject matters under clauses (i) through (v) above.
Explanation:
(i) for the purpose of these Rules, cases pertaining to the Information Technology Act, 2000 dealing with the rights and liabilities of intermediaries, online market places, e-commerce platforms involving issues relating to any of the aforementioned subject matters, shall be deemed to be within the purview of intellectual property rights.;
(ii) intermediaries, online market places, e-commerce platforms shall be interpreted in terms of the definition contained in Section 2(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000."
5. A perusal of the same would show that the matters pertaining to trademarks irrespective of whether the same would be on the basis of statutory or common law rights or contractual matters would be covered in the definition of `Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) subject matter' under the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court IP Division.
6. In the present case, the definition of Intellectual Property in the franchise agreements is quite wide. The same is extracted below:
"17. Intellectual Property; shall mean and include, all marks, copyrights, patents, patent applications, trade secrets and other intellectual property rights of the Franchisor and/or of its affiliates, group companies in, upon or in relation to the Trade Marks, are all exclusive and proprietary to Franchisor and any of the content or matter or form of decoration, presentation available, and to be made available at any time, and from time to time at the Outlet, whether pursuant hereto or otherwise.
2.3 Ownership
i) Except for right to
AI
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....
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.