IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
For appointment of LC Lokesh Tayal Trading As Durga Plastics - Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Amit Agarwal & ors. - Defendants
CS (COMM) 1002 of 2024, I.A. 44807 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025
ORDER :
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
I.A. 44806/2024-Additional Documents
1. Vide the present application, the plaintiff seeks thirty days to file additional documents.
2. For the reasons stated in the present application, the same is allowed and the plaintiff is granted thirty days to file additional documents, albeit, strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
3. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. 44808/2024-Exp
4. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 44809/2024-Exp to serve the defendants in advance
6. In light of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by this Court, wherein the parties have been referred to mediation, the present application has been rendered infructuous.
7. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. 44810/2024-Exp from preinstitution mediation.
8. In light of the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by this Court, wherein the parties have been referred to mediation, the present application has been rendered infructuous.
9. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 1002/2024
10. The plaintiff by way of the present plaint seeks permanent injunction and damages for infringement and passing of under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’).
11. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
12. Issue summons of the suit.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants on advance notice accepts summons.
14. Learned counsel for the defendants seeks, and is granted thirty days for filing the written statement(s). Written statement(s) be filed by the defendants along with affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents of the plaintiffs, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
15. Replication(s) thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of written statement(s). The said replication(s), if any, shall be accompanied by with affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents filed by the defendants, without which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record within the aforesaid period of fifteen days.
16. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any document(s), the same shall be sought and given within the requisite timelines.
17. List before the Joint Registrar for marking exhibits of documents on 03.07.2025. It is made clear that if any party unjustifiably denies any document(s), then such party would be liable to be burdened with costs.
18. List before the Court on 15.07.2025.
I.A. 44805/2024-Stay
or any other trade mark/label(s)/ label/ trade dress/ artistic work/ packaging/ combination of colours identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trademark/label/trade dress/ trade name/ packaging/combination of colours “OCI/”
and“O logo/"
in relation to electrical goods including wires and cables and related/ allied/ cognate goods and/ or services of allied/ cognate nature or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s trademarks and/ or copyrights.20. Issue notice.
21. Learned counsel for the defendants, appearing on advance notice, accepts notice.
22. Learned counsel for the defendants seeks, and is granted, four weeks for filing reply(s). Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
23. List before the Court for argument
The court allowed the plaintiff's request for additional documents and issued summons for trademark infringement, emphasizing procedural compliance and mediation.
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....
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 established that prima facie evidence of trademark infringement justified an interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiff.
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 court established that a prima facie case for relief exists when trademark infringement is evident, justifying ex parte interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm.
Trademark law recognizes the importance of avoiding consumer confusion between similar marks, especially in pharmaceuticals, while encouraging mediation to resolve disputes.
In commercial litigation, parties must comply with strict rules on document disclosure; late submissions are only permissible under specified conditions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.