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

DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Puma Se – Appellant
Versus
D.K. Arora – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.07.2022, passed by the learned Commercial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant, under Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') and returning the plaint; the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. The appellant, which is a company based in Germany, had filed the suit alleging that the respondent is manufacturing and selling counterfeit products under its well-known label, .

3. The appellant/plaintiff in the suit, sought various reliefs including permanent injunction, restraining the respondent from infringing its trade mark, "PUMA". By an order dated 10.05.2019, the learned Trial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the respondent from using the impugned mark. Thereafter, during the course of proceedings, the respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that no cause of action had arisen so as to entitle the plaintiff to file the suit. The respondent also raised an objection that the Courts in Delhi have no territorial jurisdi

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top