Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000608

CS(COMM) 604/2021

Page 1 of 33

$~43(original side)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 23^rd January 2023

Pronounced on: 30^th January 2023

+

CS(COMM) 604/2021 & I.A. 15428/2021, I.A. 5025/2022, I.A.

5026/2022, I.A. 5027/2022

JINDAL STAINLESS (HISAR) LTD.

..... Plaintiff

Through:

Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Sarad Kumar S., Mr. Rohan Dua

and Ms. Kanchal Zikmani, Advs.

versus

SUNCITY SHEETS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr.

J.

Sai

Deepak,

Mr.

Abhishek A., Mr. Manish Rastogi and Mr.

Kishore Kunal, Advs. for D-1 & D-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

%

30.01.2023

I.A. 5027/2022

1.

This judgment disposes of the present application, under Order I

Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), filed by Jindal

Industries Pvt. Ltd. (JIPL) seeking to be impleaded as Plaintiff 2 in the

present suit in which, as of now, Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd.

(occasionally referred to, hereinafter, as ―JSHL‖) is the sole plaintiff.

2.

I have heard Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for

the plaintiff and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Counsel for the

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:30.01.2023

13:33:19

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000608

CS(COMM) 604/2021

Page 2 of 33

defendants, at length on the application.

The plaint

3.

The plaintiff alleges that the

mark of the defendants

infringes the

,

,

and

trade

marks, in which the plaintiff holds valid and subsisting registrations in

various classes.

4.

The impugned mark of the defendants is clearly not identical to

the registered trade marks of the plaintiff. The plaint, however,

alleges that the very use of the word ―JINDAL‖, by the defendants,

infringes each of the plaintiff‘s registered trade marks. The plaint

further alleges that the defendants are seeking, by use of their

mark, to pass off their products as the products of the

plaintiffs. Predicated on these allegations, the plaint seeks a decree of

permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and all others acting

on their behalf from using the

mark or the word ―JINDAL‖

in any form. Additionally, the suit also prays for delivery-up,

rendition of accounts, damages and costs.

5.

IA 15428/2021 was also filed by the plaintiff with the suit,

seeking interlocutory injunctive reliefs.

6.

When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before this

Court on 26^th November 2021, I expressed a tentative view that, given

Digitally Signed

By:KAMLA RAWAT

Signing Date:30.01.2023

13:33:19

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2023/DHC/000608

CS(COMM) 604/2021

Page 3 of 33

the anti-dissection principle contained in Section 17¹ of the

Trademarks Act, 1999, the fact that the plaintiff did not have any word

mark registration for JINDAL and the other features which

distinguished the composite device marks of the defendants from the

registered trade marks of the plaintiff, it was difficult, at an ad interim

stage, to hold that the impugned mark of the defendants was

deceptively similar to the plaintiff‘s registered trademarks.

7.

Following this, on 1^st December 2021, learned Counsel for the

plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff would be satisfied if the prayer for

interim injunction was taken up after a reply was filed by the

defendants to the plaintiff‘s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1

and 2, CPC.

8.

Further orders have been passed in the present proceedings, to

which it is not necessary to allude.

The present application

9.

JIPL seeks, by means of the present application, to be added as

Plaintiff 2 in the suit.

117.

Effect of registration of parts of a mark