SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 4827

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28th October, 2022 + FAO-IPD 10/2021 & CM APPL. 12717-18/2019 M/S BALAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. .... Appellant Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Samrat, Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Kamal Naresh, Mr. Aditya Rajesh and Mr. Aviral Srivastava, Advocates.

versus M/S KUNDAN CABLE INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Advocate.

+ FAO-IPD 11/2021 & CM APPL. 12554-55/2019 M/S BALAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Samrat, Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Kamal Naresh, Mr. Aditya Rajesh and Mr. Aviral Srivastava, Advocates.

versus M/S KUNDAN CABLES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Advocate.

+ FAO-IPD 12/2021 & CM APPL. 12715-16/2019 M/S BALAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Samrat, Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Kamal Naresh, Mr. Aditya Rajesh and Mr. Aviral Srivastava, Advocates.

versus M/S KUNDAN CABLE INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Advocate.

+ FAO-IPD 13/2021 & CM APPL. 12719-21/2019 M/S BALAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Samrat, Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Kamal Naresh, Mr. Aditya Rajesh and Mr. Aviral Srivastava, Advocates.

versus M/S KUNDAN CABLES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. Present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant assailing the common order dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Trial Court in suits bearing TM Nos. 70/2010, 71/2010, 72/2010 and 73/2010 and counter-claim bearing TM No. 7/2015. On account of the similitude of facts and common questions of law as well as the fact that the impugned order is a common order, the appeals are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The learned Trial Court has vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2018, dismissed the interim injunction applications filed by the Appellant under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, 1908. Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in TM No.70/2010 while Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in the remaining three suits before the Trial Court. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their litigating status before this Court.

3. As per the averments in the appeals, Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of wide range of electrical goods including electrical accessories, switches, wires and cables, electric irons, etc. under the trademarks KUNDAN and KUNDAN CAB (label). Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing all types of high- class electrical P.V.C. wires and cables under the trademarks KUNDAN and KUNDAN CABLE (label).

4. Litigation between the parties is stated to have originated when Appellant filed a complaint under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 against an unknown person on 14.01.1994. Subsequently on 05.03.1994, impugned goods under the impugned trademark were seized from M/s Madras Cable Agencies, alleged distributor of the Respondent. As a counterblast, Respondent filed a suit before this Court for permanent injunction and thereafter, Appellant filed three suits against the Respondent as well as a counter-claim in the suit filed by the Respondent, each of which are subject matters of the present appeals.

5. As per the chronology of dates and events set out in the appeals, suit bearing TM No. 70/2010 was filed by the Respondent on 14.04.1994 before this Court, under Sections 105 and 106 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, seeking relief of permanent injunction against the use of trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB in relation to electric wires, P.V.C. cables and allied goods, amounting to passing off. On 30.04.2002, plaint was amended and finally, the suit was transferred to the Trial Court.

6. On 08.09.1994, Appellant filed a suit under Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 before this Court, seeking permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff in the artistic work in ‘KUNDAN CAB’ (label), used in relation to electrical wires and cables as well as passing off. This suit was also transferred to the Trial Court and re-numbered as TM No. 71/2010. On 20.06.1995, second suit was filed by the Appellant against M/s Kundan Cables (India), seeking permanent injunction against the Respondent from directly or indirectly using the trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CABLES and KUNDANCAB as well as damages in the sum of Rs.5,00,500/-, which was transferred to the Trial Court and re-numbered as TM No. 73/2010. Third suit was filed by the Appellant on 24.11.2006 under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 in this Court against M/s Kundan Cable (India) Private Limited, seeking permanent injunction from using the impugned trademark/trade name KUNDAN/ M/S KUNDAN CABLES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. or any other trademark/tradename identical with or deceptively similar to Appellant’s trademark KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB registered under No.507445 in Class 09 as well as from infringement of copyright in the labels KUNDAN/KUNDAN CAB and passing off. The suit was transferred to the Trial Court and re-numbered as TM No. 72/2010. In the suit filed by the Respondent, i.e., TM No. 70/2010, Appellant filed a counter-claim on 09.04.1995, which was amended on 03.09.1998. The same was separately registered and re-numbered as TM No. 7/2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top