MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)

CS(COMM) 803/2024

1. The present suit has been filed under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 for permanent and mandatory injunction restraining passing off of trademark, infringement of copyright, delivery up, damages, rendition of accounts, etc.

2. As per the case canvassed on behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are carrying on their business for the goods under their trademarks/labels 

3. It is further submitted that with respect to the rights of the plaintiffs in their art works in the said trademarks/ label, the plaintiffs‟ original artistic work has become distinctive, therefore, the plaintiffs are further protected under the Copyrights Act, 1957, as well.

4. It is submitted that plaintiffs in 2009, honestly and bonafidely adopted and the trademark “OMAHARAJA”.

5. The plaintiffs in order to fortify its rights in the said trademarks/labels under the statute, have filed various trademark applications, details of which, are as follows:

6. It is submitted that these applications of the plaintiffs have not attained registrations, owing to third party filing opposition proceedings, against the same.

7. It is submitted that plaintiffs are carrying on their business activities under the said trademarks/labels on the internet through its own interactive website, i.e., https://maharajamoldedfurniture.com, as well as through other websites, including, Amazon, Flipkart, etc.

8. It is submitted that defendant no.1, i.e., Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., is one of the largest e-commerce platforms, operating in the country. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have many listings on the site of the defendant no.1, i.e., Flipkart. However, on account of the latching-on feature of Flipkart, other sellers have also latched-on to the listing of the plaintiffs.

9. The present suit has been filed because the plaintiffs are, in particular, aggrieved by the fact that on account of this latching-on feature on the listing of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1/Flipkart, other sellers, who are not selling the genuine “MAHARAJA” products of the plaintiffs, have latched-on to the listings of the plaintiff. In particular, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, submits that defendant nos. 2 and 3 herein, are selling products, which are not genuine products of the plaintiffs, however, they have latched-on to the listings of the plaintiffs.

10. It is submitted that defendant nos. 2 and 3 are sellers on the platform of defendant no. 1, i.e., www.flipkart.com, who tag themselves as alternative sellers of the goods of the plaintiffs, in the very own product listing/display of the plaintiffs on www.flipkart.com, where they sell their products at further discounts.

11. It is submitted that when the defendant nos. 2 and 3 sell their products, the invoices, which are issued by them, are in the name of the plaintiffs, as if the products sold by defendant nos. 2 and 3, are the products of the plaintiffs.

12. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Tax Invoices issued by defendant no.2, wherein, the trademark of the plaintiffs, i.e., MAHARAJA, has been used in the invoice. The Tax Invoice issued by AKS TRADING, defendant no. 2, as given the document folder, is reproduced as under:

13. Similarly, the Tax Invoice issued by Ns Marketing, defendant no.3 also shows that while selling its products by latching-on to the listing of the plaintiffs, the invoice is issued by using the trademark “MAHARAJA”. Thus, it is the contention of the plaintiffs, that defendant no.3 is also selling its products, as if, the same originate from the plaintiffs. The Tax Invoice issued by Ns Marketing, i.e., defendant no. 3, as given in the document folder, is reproduced as under:

14. This Court records the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs that defendant nos. 2 and 3, do not have a separate listing on Flipkart, but have latched on to the listing of the plaintiffs. Considering the sub