Back
MINI PUSHKARNA
Supreme Industries Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ankit Goel Trading As Goel Trading Company – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), against the judgment dated 30th January, 2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Shahdara, District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in suit, i.e. CS(COMM) 395/2020.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is the registered proprietor of the trademark and copyright SUPREME/
etc. in relation to manufacturing and marketing of pipes, PVC, tubes, hoses, etc.
3. It is submitted that the appellant had earlier filed a suit, i.e., COMIP (L) No. 1774/2018 against the respondent herein, which culminated in judgment dated 18th January, 2019, passed by the Bombay High Court. Respondent herein was earlier found guilty of infringing the registered mark of the appellant herein, i.e., SUPREME, by use of the infringing mark “SUPREME TECH”. Thus, vide judgment dated 18th January, 2019, the Bombay High Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant, herein.
4. It is submitted that subsequently, the respondent herein, was found to aga
Each act of trademark infringement constitutes a fresh cause of action, allowing the aggrieved party to file a new suit for ongoing violations.
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.
To establish trademark infringement, the plaint must demonstrate use 'in the course of trade'; mere display of a mark without commercial activity does not satisfy this requirement.
A composite suit involving causes of action under different statutes can only be filed in a court with territorial jurisdiction over both causes of action.
In trademark infringement actions, a presumption of confusion arises if the defendant's mark is identical to that of the registered trademark, fostering the entitlement to interim injunction.
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
