Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 6831
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
GS1 INDIA – Appellant
Versus
PEDDLETECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 711/2024
ADITYA GUPTA
The court granted an ex parte injunction against unauthorized use of barcodes, affirming the plaintiff's exclusive rights under trademark law.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 11 Rule 1(4) - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Exemption from pre-litigation mediation granted to the plaintiff seeking urgent ad-interim relief - Plaintiff's exclusive rights to barcode allocation under Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 75 - Defendants engaged in unauthorized sale of barcodes leading to confusion and infringement of plaintiff's trademark. (Paras 2, 16, 29, 34, 36)
(B) Trademark Infringement - The plaintiff holds exclusive rights to the barcode starting with '890' and any unauthorized use by defendants constitutes infringement. (Paras 34, 35)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a not-for-profit society, holds exclusive rights to barcode '890' and alleges that defendants are fraudulently selling barcodes leading to confusion regarding certification and origin. (Paras 16, 18, 34)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendants' actions are unauthorized and infringe upon the plaintiff's trademark rights, warranting an ex parte ad interim injunction. (Paras 36, 37)
Issues: The main issues addressed include the plaintiff's exclusive rights to barcode allocation and the defendants' unauthorized actions leading to trademark infringement. (Paras 29, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case for an injunction due to the defendants' unauthorized use of the plaintiff's trademark, which could lead to irreparable harm. (Paras 36, 37)
Result: Defendants restrained from using, selling, or allocating barcodes starting with '890'.
O R D E R
I.A. 37211/2024 (Exp from pre institution mediation)
1. The plaintiff seeks exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.
2. Considering the averments made in the present application wherein the plaintiff seeks urgent ad-interim relief and in view of Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Krithi 2023 SCC OnLine 1382 and Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R. A. Perfumery Works Private Limited . 2022:DHC:4454- DB , the plaintiff is exempted from instituting pre-litigation mediation. 3. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and disposed of. I.A. 37210/2024 (Exp)
4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The applications stand disposed of. I.A. 37209/2024 (Addl.doc) CS(COMM) 711/2024 Page 1 of 12
6. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking to place on record additional documents.
7. The plaintiff will be at liberty to file additional documents at a later stage, albeit, strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
8. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of. CS(COMM) 711/2024
9. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
10. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendants through all permissible modes returnable before the Joint Registrar on 26.11.2024.
11. The summons shall state that the written statement(s) be filed by the defendants within a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the summons. Written statement(s) be filed by the defendants along with affidavit(s) of admission/ denial of documents of the plaintiff, without which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.
12. 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.
13. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any document(s), the same shall be sought and given within the requisite timelines. CS(COMM) 711/2024 Page 2 of 12
14. List before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 26.11.2024. It is made clear that if any party unjustifiably denies any document(s), then it would be liable to be burdened with costs.
15. List before the Court on 13.01.2025. I.A. 37208/2024 (Stay)
16. The plaintiff seeks grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction against defendants from using, selling, offering for sale, issuing or allocating 13- digit barcode numbers starting with ‘890’ or any deceptively similar marks thereto in any manner and for any goods or services leading to confusion as to origin or association or mistaken impression as to certification regarding compliance with GS1 standards (GS1 General Specification), amounting to infringement of plaintiff’s registered trademark bearing no.1293152.
17. As per plaint, the plaintiff is a not-for-profit society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and was set up on 7th June, 1996 by several industry bodies and statutory bodies like the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, Federation of Indian Exports Organizations (FIEO), Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) Spices Board, Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP), Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and leading Apex chambers Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and IMC Chamber of Commerce and Industry (IMC).
18. The plaintiff is affiliated to and has been granted an exclusive license by GS1 AISBL an organization which was set up by various CS
