Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Toasha Agencies - Appellant
Versus
Siddhant Choudhary - Respondent
CS(COMM) 1441 of 2016
Decided On : 10-11-2021
The court confirmed that impleading of a necessary party is essential in trademark disputes and dismissed the injunction application due to lack of fresh cause and prior knowledge of the facts.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10, Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 - Application for impleadment of party in a trade name dispute - Plaintiffs as prior users of 'Toasha' sought to add wife's involvement - Defendant claimed prior knowledge by Plaintiffs of wife's role; necessity of her presence for adjudication established - Court allowed impleadment, dismissing Plaintiffs' injunction request based on lack of fresh cause of action. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Trade Name - Prima facie case established in favor of Defendant due to trademark registration; no merit in the Plaintiffs’ application for injunction.
Findings of Court:
Court allowed impleadment of Smt. Neetu Choudhary as Defendant No. 2, but dismissed the application for injunction against her, affirming prior rulings that established the context of the trade dispute.
Issues: Whether Smt. Neetu Choudhary should be impleaded, and the basis for Plaintiffs’ claim for injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity of including the wife due to her involvement as a stockist and noted that the injunction was previously addressed and rejected based on existing knowledge and circumstances.
Result: Application for injunction dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for impleadment under cpc (Para 1) |
| 2. contentions regarding prior use of trade name (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendant's knowledge and involvement in trade (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. application for temporary injunction against defendant no. 2 (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's prior injunction and appeal considerations (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. dismissal of application due to lack of merit (Para 14) |
| 7. withdrawal of application with liberty (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. next steps for pleadings and document management (Para 17) |
ORDER
[VIA HYBRID MODE]
I.A. 9424/2021 (under Order 1 Rule 10, read with 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleadment of wife of the Defendant - viz. Smt. Neetu Choudhary (proposed Defendant No. 2) in the above captioned suit)
1. The present application has been filed under Order I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter, "CPC"] for impleadment of the Smt. Neetu Choudhary (wife of the Defendant) as Defendant No. 2.
2. Mr. Kapil Sankhla, counsel for the Plaintiffs contends that the Plaintiffs are prior users of the trade name - `Toasha'1 and contend that the Defendant - viz. Sh. Siddhant Choudhary, was employed by the Plaintiffs from 2001-04 and was thereafter permitted to use the said trade name - `TOASHA'. He was only a permissive and subsequent user of the Plaintiffs' trade name.
3. Sh. Siddhant Choudhary commenced business activities under the name of - `TOASHA VACCINES (INDIA)' since 2004 in East Delhi and had applied for the registration of the said trade name in 2010.2 The wife of Sh. Siddhant Choudhary - viz. Smt. Neetu Choudhary (proposed Defendant No. 2) had been handling the shop with Sh. Siddhant Choudhary in the aforesaid name [Later changed to - `TOASHA VACCINES (NOIDA)']. Mr. Kapil Sankhla contends that Sh. Siddhant Choudhary during the pendency of the lis between the parties, colluded to create third-party interest and opened a separate independent outlet, that is run by Smt. Neetu Choudhary (proposed Defendant No. 2) as the sole proprietor, in the name of `TOASHA VACCINES (NOIDA)'.
4. Mr. Sankhla further contends that at the time of the filing of the present suit, as per knowledge of the Plaintiffs, Sh. Siddhant Choudhary was solely responsible for passing of his business under the trade name - `TOASHA' of selling vaccines, pharmaceuticals; the drug licence(s) obtained by him was also in his name. However, in the written statement filed by the Sh. Siddhant Choudhary, it has been averred that Smt. Neetu Choudhary had been in the said business as a stockist under the entity - `TOASHA VACCINES (INDIA)' which was later renamed as `TOASHA VACCINES (NOIDA)'. In these circumstances, it is necessary to implead Smt. Neetu Choudhary as a party to the present suit.
5. Per Contra, Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, counsel for the Defendant No. 1 and proposed Defendant No. 2, contends that the application is mis-founded. Plaintiffs had prior knowledge of the fact that Smt. Neetu Choudhary was a stockist and this can be discerned from the fact that parties had been transacting with each other. The Defendant had categorically disclosed Smt. Neetu Choudhary's involvement in operating `TOASHA VACCINE (INDIA)'. In order to overcome delay and laches, the present application has been filed.
6. Indeed, the averments in the written statements disclose that Smt. Neetu Choudhary, who is proposed to be impleaded as Defendant No. 2 is also dealing in the said business under the disputed trade name. Although, no genuine explanation has been offered by the Plaintiffs for not taking action against the proposed Defendant No. 2 earlier, yet, considering the nature of the suit, presence of Smt. Neetu Choudhary would be necessary in view of the stand taken by the Sh. Siddhant Choudhary in the written statement.
7. In view of the foregoing, the present application is allowed, Smt. Neetu Choudhary is impleaded as Defendant No. 2. Amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one
