Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JINDAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
SUNCITY SHEETS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's claim for injunction based on registered trademarks. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiff argues infringement of trademarks. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendant counters with common surname argument. (Para 6) |
| 4. section 35 provides defenses against trademark infringement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. distinct marks avoid confusion & passing off. (Para 42 , 44) |
| 6. plaintiff’s request for injunction denied. (Para 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT
% 07.03.2024 IA18962/2023 [under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC]
1. “What’s in a name?” queried Juliet, of her Romeo, [$~]. Much indeed, as this litigation would disclose.
2. This judgment decides IA18962/2023, preferred by the plaintiff Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff seeks an order of interim injunction, pending disposal of CS (Comm) 679/2023, restraining the
3. Defendant 1 is Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. (“SSPL”) and Defendant 2 is Rachna Jindal, the wife of Nitin Kumar Jindal, the Manager of SSPL. Rival Contentions
4. I have heard Mr. Chander M. Lall, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff-applicant, Mr. Vaibhav Agnihotri, learned C
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
