Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
Rajesh Kumar Modanwal – Appellant
Versus
A.R. Spares Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of trademark dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding trademark usage (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on confusion and passing off (Para 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion on the injunction appeal (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. Present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20th February, 2020 passed by learned District Judge (Commercial Court) West District, Tis Hazari Court. Appellant-Defendant also seeks a direction to stay further proceedings in CS (COMM) No. 407/2019 till the disposal of the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Defendant states that the Appellant-Defendant is engaged in the business of sale and supply of motorcycle auto spare parts included in class 12 under the Trade mark no 3718530 which was granted to the Appellant-Defendant on 3rd January, 2018.
3. He states that the Respondent-Plaintiff instituted a Civil Suit No. 407/2019 for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, delivery upon, rendition of accounts of profit along with damages against the Appellant-Defendant for using trademark `AR Gold'.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Defendant states that the Respondent-
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
