Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Khadi and Village Industries Commission – Appellant
Versus
Roopika Rastogi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's ownership and use of khadi trademarks. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. defendant's infringement of trademarks. (Para 13) |
| 3. assessment of prima facie case and balance of convenience. (Para 14) |
| 4. injunction granted against defendant's use of trademarks. (Para 15) |
| 5. next court date set. (Para 16) |
ORDER
I.A. No. 4557/2021(for exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
I.A. No. 4556/2021 (u/O 11 R 1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC for filing additional documents)
3. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015.
4. The Plaintiffs, if they wish to file additional documents at a later stage, shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. The application is disposed of in the above terms.
CS(COMM) 146/2021
5. The plaint is registered as suit.
6. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendant by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from
The court established that the use of a similar mark that may cause consumer confusion constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, affirming the Plaintiff's exclusive rights over its register....
Plaintiff established a prima facie case for trademark and copyright infringement, necessitating an interim injunction to prevent consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
The court upheld that protecting registered trademarks from potentially infringing use requires establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential for irreparable harm.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of registered trademarks and the grant of interim injunctions to prevent trademark infringement and potential harm to consumers.
The court established that a prima facie case for relief exists when trademark infringement is evident, justifying ex parte interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm.
A plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case of trademark infringement, supported by evidence of prior use and likelihood of consumer confusion to obtain an ex-parte injunction.
The court affirmed that trademark owners are entitled to an interim injunction against unauthorized similar use that may confuse consumers, prioritizing the prevention of irreparable harm over potent....
Trademark infringement and passing off claims were established due to the unauthorized use of a competitor's trademark, justifying ex-parte injunction and domain suspension.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order XI Rule 5 of the CPC, additional documents may be permitted to be filed if they are relevant for the adjudication of the case and ....
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
