SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP - Appellant
Versus
Singh+Singh Lawyers LLP - Respondent
CS(COMM) 263 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2021




Trademark infringement claims must prevent confusion in the marketplace, emphasizing the necessity for injunctions when identical marks are used in overlapping services, particularly in a global context.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 149 and 151 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Exemption from filing notarized documents and court fees due to COVID-19 - Applications for exemption allowed on condition that required documents will be filed within two weeks after restrictions are lifted. (Paras 3-9)

(B) Trademark infringement - Plaintiffs established prima facie case for protection of mark ‘Singh & Singh’ against ‘Singh + Singh’ - Likelihood of confusion among clients due to identical marks necessitates injunction to prevent potential harm. (Paras 22-31)

(C) The Court restrained the Defendants from using the impugned marks and directed suspension of the domain name related to the infringement, recognizing the risk of unfair competition and client deception. (Para 31)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants for trademark infringement, claiming they have used the name ‘Singh & Singh’ since 1997 and have valid registrations since 2005. Defendants adopted a similar name, ‘Singh + Singh’, allegedly to capitalize on the Plaintiffs' reputation. (Paras 23-29)

Findings of Court:
The evidence presented indicates a significant likelihood of confusion among clients due to the emerging presence of the Defendants in online spaces, which could unlawfully benefit from the Plaintiffs' established goodwill. (Paras 28-30)

Issues: The main issue was whether the Defendants' use of the name ‘Singh + Singh’ was likely to cause confusion and infringe upon the trademark rights of the Plaintiffs. (Paras 22-29)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court opined that the protection of trademarks includes preventing misrepresentations in the marketplace. The global context of legal services necessitates preventative measures against potential confusion irrespective of geographical use. (Paras 28-30)

Result: The Defendants are restrained from using ‘Singh + Singh’ and related trademarks until the next hearing.

Table of Content
1. exemption from filing notarized documents. (Para 3 , 4)
2. exemption from filing court fees. (Para 7 , 8)
3. leave to file additional documents under commercial courts act. (Para 11 , 12)
4. exemption from pre-litigation mediation. (Para 14 , 15)
5. allegations of trademark infringement and evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
6. defendant's argument on lack of urgency and jurisdiction. (Para 27)
7. court's observations on likelihood of confusion and injunction. (Para 28 , 30 , 31)
8. orders for injunction and further court directions. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

I.A. 7144/2021 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 7145/2021 (for exemption from filing affidavit without notarization/attestation and for exemption for vakalatnamas from bearing seal /stamp of Plaintiffs)

3. The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC') on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeks exemption from filing affidavits without notarization/attestation and further, seeks exemption from filing vakalatnamas without seal/stamp of the Plaintiffs.

4. The Plaintiffs submit that due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and resultant restrictions, they are unable to file the notarized/attested affidavits and the stamped vakalatnamas. Due to the urgency of the matter, Plaintiffs have filed the subject suit without the abovementioned documents.

5. The application is allowed, subject to the Plaintiff filing the exempted documents within two weeks from the day the lockdown restrictions imposed by the Government of NCT of Delhi are lifted and the facility for attestation of affidavits is resumed.

6. The application stands disposed of. I.A. 7146/2021 (seeking exemption from filing the requisite court fee)

7. The present application under Section 149 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short `CPC') on behalf of the Plaintiffs seeks exemption from filing the requisite court fee.

8. The Plaintiffs submit that due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and resultant restrictions, they are unable to procure the necessary court fee stamps. Due to the urgency of the matter, Plaintiff has filed the subject suit without the court fee.

9. The application is allowed, subject to the Plaintiffs filing the requisite court fee within two weeks from the day the lockdown restrictions imposed by the Government of NCT of Delhi are lifted and the facility for obtaining court fees is resumed.

10. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 7147/2021 (u/O 11 R 1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking leave to file additional documents)

11. 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 (in short `Commercial Courts Act').

12. 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.

13. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 7148/2021 (for seeking exemption from Pre-Litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015)

14. The Plaintiffs have filed the present application seeking exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The Plaintiffs urge that since there is an urgency in the matter so it may be exempted from the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

15. For the grounds and reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject to just exceptions.

16. The application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 263/2021

17. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

18. Issue summons. Summons are accepted by Mr. Divjyot Singh, learned counsel for the Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Mr. Nimish Chib, learned counsel for the Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and Mr. Alipak Banerjee, learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top