Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Hirdesh, JJ.
Scotch Whisky Association Thr.Its Authorised Representative Sunil Mehdiratta – Appellant
Versus
J.K. Enterprises Thr. Its Partner Mr. Karanbeer Singh Chhabra & Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Petition No. 4543 of 2021
Decided On : 18-12-2023
Amit Agrawal Learned Senior Advocate with Anuj Bhargava, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ayush Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Headnote:
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- non-joinder of party -- not ground specified under O. 7 R. 11 -- cannot be devised as ground for rejection or return of plaint -- cannot lead to immediate rejection of plaint -- necessity of joinder of any necessary party or implication of non-joinder of any such party on maintainability of suit can be examined by trial Court at stage of framing of issues -- such inquiry clearly not permissible in application under O. 7 R. 11. Civil Revision No. 30 of 2014 decided on 26.8.2014, (2016) 1 LW 49, 2016 SCC Online Pat. 3908, CRP No. 3026 of 2019 decided on 9.3.2022 (Tel.) and 2022/DHC/004573 relied on. [Para 14]
(2) Interpretation of Statute -- legislations enacted in pursuance of international treaties and conventions -- must receive purposive interpretation, in sync with advancement and furtherance of commitments made by India at international fora. (2014) 5 SCC 438 and (1999) 2 SCC 228 followed. [Para 18]
(3) Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 -- Ss. 2 (n), 2(b) and 21 -- ‘registered proprietor’ -- can very well be treated as entity independent of authorised user for purposes of obtaining or continuing with GI tag -- RP has independent legal status and entitlement to relate himself to GI tag -- AU has right to get himself registered separately and claim protection of GI independently -- mere existence or registration of AU cannot operate to complete exclusion of RP so as to dislodge and displace him from claiming protection of any GI or from standing against infringement thereof. [Para 31]
(4) Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 -- Ss. 2(n), 2(b) and 21 -- registration of GI gives equal recognition and rights to registered proprietor as well as authorised user of obtaining ‘right to obtain relief’ in event of infringement of GI by any person -- ‘exclusive right’ to use of goods whose GI is registered is qua world at large -- cannot work to exclusion of RP, the originator of very existence of right -- if there is a right, there is a remedy -- RP would also have right to file restraint suit for grant of injunction against any unauthorised user of GI tag. [Para 31]
(5) Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 -- S. 21(1)(a) -- word ‘and’ -- has to be treated as ‘or’ -- status of registered proprietor would be reduced below authorised user by any other interpretation. (2008) 4 SCC 755 and (2004) 7 SCC 68 followed. 991 MPLJ 625 relied on. [Paras 32 & 33]
(6) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11(a) -- independent and special remedy of terminating suit at threshold -- power must be exercised sparingly -- objective is to restrain plaintiff from unnecessarily retracting proceedings when no substance lies in averments or suit lacks credible material facts, grounds and evidence. [Para 34]
(7) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 -- Ss. 21(1), 2 (n) and 68 -- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 -- R. 56 -- maintainability of suit -- lack of cause of action -- pleadings based on extensive material, document and evidence -- petitioner registered association of blenders, distillers, producers and traders of Scotch Whiskey -- any whiskey titled ‘London Pride’ or using ‘UK Flag’ as label on bottle implies that it is referring to whiskey made in UK, Scotland -- Scotch Whiskey is registered GI good -- possibility of loss of business and damage to goodwill arising out of use or misuse of brand of Scotch Whiskey cannot be ruled out if it is established by plaintiffs during trial that respondent is infringing upon registered GI of petitioner -- cannot be inferred that plaint fails to disclose ‘cause of action’. (2020) 7 SCC 366 followed. [Paras 35 to 38]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11 & i{kdkj dk vla;kstu & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11 ds v/khu fofufnZ"V vk/kkj ugha & okni= dh ukeatwjh ;k okfilh ds fy, vk/kkj ds :i esa vkfo"—r ugha fd;k tk ldrk & okni= dh vfoyac ukeatwjh esa ifj.kr ugha gks ldrk & fdlh Hkh vko';d i{kdkj ds la;kstu dh vko';drk vFkok ,sls fdlh i{kdkj ds vla;kstu dk okn ds pyus ;ksX; gksus ij çHkko dk ijh{k.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fook|dksa dh fojpuk ds çØe ij fd;k tk ldrk gS & bl çdkj dh tk¡p Li"Vr% vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11 ds vèkhu vkosnu esa vuqKs; ughaA flfoy iqujh{k.k Øekad 30 lu~ 2014 fu.khZr fnukad 26-8-2014] ¼2016½ 1 ,y MCY;w 49] 2016 ,llhlh v‚uykbu iVuk 3908- lhvkjih Øekad 3026 lu~ 2019 fu.khZr fnukad 9-3-2022 rFkk 2022@Mh,plh@004573 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 14½
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu & varjjk"Vªh; laf/k;ksa vkSj vfHkle;ksa ds vuqlj.k esa vf/kfu;fer fo/kku & Hkkjr }kjk varjjk"Vªh; eapksa ij dh xbZ çfrc)rkvksa dh mUufr vkSj çxfr ls lkeatL; esa ç;kstuijd fuoZpu vko';dA ¼2014½ 5 ,llhlh 438 rFkk ¼1999½ 2 ,llhlh 228 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18½
¼3½ eky dk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ¼jftLVªhdj.k vkSj laj{k.k½ vfèkfu;e] 1999 & /kkjk 2 ¼ढ+½] 2¼[k½ rFkk 21 & ^^jftLVªh—r LoRo/kkjh** & HkkSxksfyd min'kZu VSx vfHkçkIr djus ;k mls lrr j[kus ds ç;kstu ds fy, çkf/k—r mi;ksxdrkZ ls Lora= vfLrRo HkyhHk‚fr ekuk tk ldrk gS & jftLVªh—r LoRoèkjh dh Lora= fof/kd gSfl;r vkSj Lo;a dks HkkSxksfyd min'kZu VSx ls lacafèkr djus dh gdnkjh gksrh gS & çkf/k—r mi;ksxdrkZ dks Lo;a dk jftLVªhdj.k i`Fkd~ ls djkus rFkk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ds laj{k.k dk nkok Lora= :i ls djus dk vf/kdkj gS & çkf/k—r mi;ksxdrkZ dk vfLrRo ek= vFkok jftLVªhdj.k jftLVªh—r LoRo/kkjh ds bl çdkj iw.kZ viotZu esa çofrZr ugha gks ldrk fd og fdlh HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ds laj{k.k dk nkok djus ;k fQj mlds vfrya?ku ds fo:) [kM+s gksus ls gV tk, ;k foLFkkfir gks tk,A ¼iSjk 31½
¼4½ eky dk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ¼jftLVªhdj.k vkSj laj{k.k½ vfèkfu;e] 1999 & 2¼ढ+½] 2¼[k½ rFkk 21 & HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ds jftLVªhdj.k ls jftLVªhÑr LoRo/kkjh ds lkFk gh çkf/k—r mi;ksxdrkZ dks leku ekU;rk vkSj fdlh Hkh O;fä }kjk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu dk vfrya?ku fd, tkus dh n'kk esa ^^vuqrks"k vfHkçkIr djus dk vf/kdkj** vfHkçkIr djus ds vf/kdkj çkIr gksrs gSa
& ftl eky dk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu jftLVªh—r gS mlds mi;ksx dk ^^vuU; vfèkdkj** lexz fo'o ds laca/k esa gS & jftLVªh—r LoRo/kkjh ds viotZu ds fy, fØ;k'khy ugha gks ldrk] tks ml vf/kdkj ds vfLrRo dk gh ewy gS & vf/kdkj gS rks mipkj gS & jftLVªh—r LoRo/kkjh dks Hkh HkkSxksfyd min'kZu VSx ds fdlh Hkh vçkf/k—r mi;ksxdrk ds fo:) O;kns'k ds çnku ds fy, vojks/kd okn çLrqr djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA ¼iSjk 31½
¼5½ eky dk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ¼jftLVªhdj.k vkSj laj{k.k½ vfèkfu;e] 1999 & /kkjk 21¼1½ ¼d½ & 'kCn ^^vkSj** & ^^;k** ekuk tkuk gksxk & vU; fdlh Hkh fuoZpu ls jftLVªh—r LoRo/kkjh dh gSfl;r çkf/k—r mi;ksxdrkZ ls fuEurj gks tk,xhA ¼2008½ 4 ,llhlh 755 rFkk ¼2004½ 7 ,llhlh 68 vuqlfjrA 1991 ,eih,yts 625 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 32 ,oa 33½
¼6½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11¼d½ & okn gsrqd dk vHkko & okn vkjaHk esa gh lekIr djus dk Lora= vkSj fo'ks"k mipkj & 'kfä dk ç;ksx ferO;;rk ls fd;k tkuk vko';d & çdFkuksa esa dksbZ lkj ugha gks vFkok okn esa fo'okl;ksX; rkfRod rF;ksa] vk/kkjksa vkSj lk{; dk vHkko gks rc oknh dks vuko';d :i ls dk;Zokgh [khapus ls jksdus dk mn~ns'; gSA ¼iSjk 34½
¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11 & eky dk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ¼jftLVªhdj.k vkSj laj{k.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1999 & /kkjk 21¼1½] 2¼ढ+½ rFkk 68 & eky dk HkkSxksfyd min'kZu ¼jftLVªhdj.k vkSj laj{k.k½ fu;e] 2002 & fuŒ 56 & okn pyus ;ksX; gksuk & okn gsrqd dk vHkko & vfHkopu foLr`r lkexzh- nLrkostksa rFkk lk{; ij vk/kkfjr & ;kph Ld‚p foLdh ds lfEeJdksa] vklodksa] mRikndksa vkSj O;kikfj;ksa dk iath—r laxe & ^^yaMu çkbM** uke dk vFkok cksry ij yscy ds :i esa ^^;wds ySx** dk mi;ksx djus okyh fdlh Hkh foLdh ls foof{kr gksrk gS fd mlls ;wds] Ld‚VySaM esa cukbZ xbZ foLdh fufnZ"V gS & Ld‚p foLdh jftLVªh—r HkkSxksfyd min'kZu eky gS & ;fn oknh }kjk fopkj.k ds nkSjku ;g LFkkfir dj fn;k tkrk gS fd çR;FkhZ ;kph ds jftLVªh—r HkkSxksfyd min'kZu dk vfrya?ku dj jgk gS- rks Ld‚p foLdh ds czkaM ds mi;ksx ;k nq:i;ksx ls mn~Hkwr dkjckj dh gkfu vkSj xqMfoy ds uqdlku dh laHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudkyk tk ldrk fd okni= ^^okn gsrqd** çdV djus esa vlQy jgk gSA ¼2020½ 7 ,llhlh 366 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 35 ls 38½
ORDER
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
1. The Petitioner- Scotch Whisky Association (hereinafter 'The Petitioner') in the present case lays a challenge to the order dated 28.10.2021 passed in CS no. 07/2020 by the Commercial Court in District Indore, through which the application under Order VII Rule 11 (hereinafter O7/R11) has been partly allowed holding the suit to be maintainable only after impleadment of "Authorised User" (hereinafter 'AU') in terms of the mandate of Section 21 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'GI Act').
2. The petitioner by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pleads that being a "Registered Proprietor" (hereinafter 'RP') of the Scotch Whisky Geographical Indication (hereinafter 'GI') has an independent right and entitlement to maintain the suit for infringement of the GI in his own independent capacity.
3. The petitioner mentions itself to be a company incorporated under laws of the United Kingdom with its registered office at Scotland, UK and legal representatives in India, Mr. Sunil MB Dutta has been authorized to carry out all functions on behalf of petitioner. The petitioner states itself to be an association of 56 distillers, producers, dealers, blenders, owners of proprietary brand or brands, brokers or exporters of Scotch Whisky, which is manufactured in the United Kingdom, especially Scotland. It is further mentioned that additional protection has been granted by the Government of India w.e.f 28.11.2011 under Section 22(2) of the GI Act.
4. Petitioner had filed a GI Application no. 151 as the RP applicant for a grant of GI for Scotch Whisky earlier on 5th January 2009, on which the aforesaid notifications granting the status of GI to Scotch Whisky came to be issued, first in time being on 23rd September 2010. Thus petitioner is argued to be the RP, on whose application the ' Scotch Whisky' (hereinafter 'SW') attained the GI status in the country. Referring to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of petitioner, a company incorporated in April 1960 at Edinburgh, UK. It is stated that the objectives of the association of the company are to protect and promote the Scotch Whisky trade at home and abroad; and to protect and preserve the Scotch Whisky business in the UK and abroad.
5. It is thus stated that being the original applicant as RP, on whose application the GI tag was granted by the Central Government to Scotch Whisky, the suit for infringement of GI at their instance under Section 21 is clearly maintainable and the petitioner has been incorrectly directed to be impleaded or proceed with the suit only after the impleadment of registered AU of the Scotch Whisky under the GI Act.
6. The original suit before the Trial Court has been filed seeking essentially a restraint order against the defendants or any of their agents for manufacturing, bottling, selling or in any manner marketing any Whisky which is not Scotch Whisky under the mark 'London Pride' or any other words, names, business names, etc. It is further prayed in the original suit for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, importing, exporting, stocking or dealing in any manner with any whisky being not Scotch Whisky by using the device of Union Jack or any such other image/impression. The suit has been filed through the authorized signatory having its registered office in India.
7. J.K. Enterprises (hereinafter 'JKE') is a partnership firm, with Defendant No. 2 & 3 as its partners, having its Head Office in Indore. Its manufacturing and packaging unit is situated in District Dhar and Indore. Other defendants are also engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of whisky, being companies incorporated under the Companies Act. They are stated to be marketing and selling 'London Pride' whisky, which gives rise to the cause of action in the plaint.
8. The following issues arise for consideration in the present matte
