Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.
Industries and Spirits (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
C.R.P. Nos. 894, 895, 897 of 2020
Decided On : 01-09-2020
AMENDMENT - Interlocutory Applications - Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. - Section 141 C.P.C. - The court allowed the amendments to the counter-affidavits filed in the Interlocutory Applications, holding that the procedure in regard to suits can be applied to such interlocutory applications as well. The court disagreed with the view that affidavits filed in Interlocutory Applications cannot be amended and allowed the amendments, setting aside the orders of the Court below and directing the Court to proceed with the Interlocutory Applications after permitting the petitioner to file amended counter-affidavits.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner, alleging infringement of trademark and copyright, seeking perpetual injunctions and damages. The petitioner denied the allegations in the written statement. Interlocutory Applications were filed by both parties, and the petitioner sought to amend the counter-affidavits filed in the applications.
Finding of the Court:
The Court allowed the amendments to the counter-affidavits, setting aside the orders of the Court below and directing the Court to proceed with the Interlocutory Applications after permitting the petitioner to file amended counter-affidavits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendments to the counter-affidavits filed in the Interlocutory Applications should be allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the procedure in regard to suits can be applied to interlocutory applications, allowing the amendments to the counter-affidavits filed in the applications.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the amendments, setting aside the orders of the Court below and directing the Court to proceed with the Interlocutory Applications after permitting the petitioner to file amended counter-affidavits.
ORDER :
1. These three Revisions arise out of the same suit between the same parties and are therefore being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner in the Revision Petitions is defendant in O.S. No. 106 of 2020 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF IN THE SUIT
3. The respondent herein had filed the said suit against the petitioner contending that it is in the business of manufacturing and marketing of alcoholic beverages including Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL); that it sells alcoholic beverages under various distinctive trade marks and labels, such as OFFICER'S CHOICE, OFFICER'S CHOICE BLUE, OFFICER'S CHOICE BLACK etc. that it acquired the said OFFICER'S CHOICE trade mark under a deed of assignment dated 26.02.1991 from its predecessor; that it has been using the same since 1988; that its products using the said trade mark have acquired reputation and goodwill as a result of their excellent quality, distinctive packaging etc. that it has also secured registration of the trade mark OFFICER'S CHOICE and its variants as mentioned in para-9 of the plaint not only in English but also in other languages as well which are still subsisting and it has proprietary rights in the said marks; that the label OFFICER'S CHOICE used by it has a distinctive design, colour scheme, font, layout and getup along with the epaulette as its trade dresses/labels which constitute an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and that it is the owner of the said Copyright; that it has also registered its labels mentioned in para-11 of the plaint under the Copyright Act, 1957; that one of the labels contains a combination of red, white and gold/yellow.
4. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner/defendant is also claiming to be a manufacturer and marketer of liquor brands and products in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh; that the petitioner is using a label “Manjeera Classic No. 1 Whisky” “Manjeera Classic Reserve Whisky” and “Manjeera Special Reserve Whisky” in these States which are similar and identical to the respondent's “OFFICER'S CHOICE” trade mark, trade dress and labels; and this conduct of the petitioner is dishonest and in bad faith and proves its intention to ride on the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the respondent; that the petitioner's labels are deceptively and confusingly similar to the respondent's labels and violate the statutory rights and common law rights of the respondent.
5. Therefore the respondent sought perpetual injunctions (a) restraining the petitioner from infringing its registered trademark “OFFICER'S CHOICE” and its variants, (b) restraining the petitioner from infringing its copyright; (c) restraining the petitioner from manufacturing, selling, exporting etc with the labels “Manjeera Classic” and “Manjeera Special” and from doing anything which is likely to cause confusion or deception leading to “passing off” of the petitioner's goods business as those of the respondent, damages etc.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER
6. Written statement was filed by petitioner denying the said averments and justifying the use by it in the existing form of the marks and labels “Manjeera Classic” and “Manjeera Special.” It is also contended that there is no similarity with the respondent's mark or labels.
I.A. Nos. 401, 402 and 403 of 2020 filed under or. 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC
7. Pending suit, I.A. No. 401 of 2020 was filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from infringing its trade mark “OFFICER'S CHOICE” I.A. No. 402 of 2020 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. by the respondent to restrain the petitioner from 'passing off' of its goods and business as that of the respondent; and I.A. No. 403 of 2020 was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. to restrain the petitioner from infringing the respondent's c
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
