Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 32876
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Amit Bansal, J
SAIF HONG KONG HOLDINGS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
JOHN DOE/ ASHOK KUMAR – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1198/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Ms. Priya Adlakha, Ms. Sucharu Garg, Ms. Shilpi Sinha
For the Respondents: Ms. Mrinal Ojha, Mr. Debarshi Dutta, Mr. Arjun Mookhrjee, Ms. Nikita Rathi, Mr. Sumit Nagpal, Ms. Aastha Sood, Ms. Megha Negi, Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Shashank Mishra, Ms. Swati Agarwal, Mr. Akshi Rastogi, Mr. Vaarish K. Sawlani, Mr. Sarfaraz Khan, Mr. Mirza Amir Baig, Mr. Abdul Wahid Mashaal, Ms. Praveena Gautam, Mr. Pawan Shukla, Ms. Atissy Annie Thomos, Ms. Akanksha Tyagi
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' proprietary rights over the trademark 'SAIF PARTNERS' and granted an injunction against defendants for trademark infringement and fraudulent activities, establishing urgency for immediate relief.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order V Rule 9, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Urgent interim relief sought - Exemption from pre-institution mediation granted due to urgency as per Supreme Court judgment - Leave granted to file additional documents - Summons issued to defendants via email due to their status as Domain Name Registrars - Injunction granted against defendants for trademark infringement and fraudulent activities. (Paras 1-2, 26, 41-43)
(B) Trademark Infringement - The plaintiffs established proprietary rights over the trademark ‘SAIF PARTNERS’ and demonstrated a prima facie case against the defendants, who were found to be using the trademark to defraud the public. (Paras 41-43)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, part of the ‘SAIF Partners’ network, filed a suit against unknown defendants for trademark infringement and fraudulent activities using their name. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants operated fraudulent trading platforms and solicited investments under the guise of their trademark. (Paras 27-38)
Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs were granted urgent relief, including an injunction against the defendants from infringing on the trademark, and the defendants were ordered to lock and suspend impugned domain names. (Paras 42-46)
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for trademark infringement and the appropriateness of granting interim relief. (Paras 41-43)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs' established proprietary rights and the urgent nature of the fraudulent activities warranted immediate relief to prevent further harm to the plaintiffs and the public. (Paras 41-43)
Result: Applications allowed; injunction granted against defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. exemption from pre-institution mediation granted due to urgency. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiffs permitted to file additional documents. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. service of summons via email allowed for certain defendants. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12) |
| 4. plaintiffs seek permanent injunction for trademark infringement. (Para 15 , 26) |
| 5. plaintiffs' background and trademark registration detailed. (Para 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 6. defendants identified as entities infringing trademarks. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. evidence of fraudulent activities linked to defendants. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. plaintiffs established proprietary rights and balance of convenience favors them. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 9. court directs defendants to take action against fraudulent activities. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 10. further proceedings scheduled with compliance requirements. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
ORDER
% 24.12.2024
I.A. 49760/2024 (u/s 12A of Commercial Courts Act )
1. As the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi , 2023SCC Online SC 1382, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted.
2. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 49761/2024_(O-XI R-1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act )
3. Thepresentapplicationhasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheplaintiffsseeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act , 2015.
4. The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
5. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
I.A. 49762/2024_(seeking service of summons and notice upon defendants no. 2 to 5 via e-mail and exemption of service through other modes)
6. This application has been filed under Order V Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking service of summons in the suit and notice in the applications upon Defendants no.3 to 5 via e-mail and exemption of service through other modes.
7. It is prayed by the plaintiffs that the summons may be issued in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC to defendants no. 3 and 5, being DNRs, through their designated Grievance Officers via e-mail and the plaintiff be exempted from serving the aforesaid defendants through other modes of service.
8. In respect of defendant no.4(DNR) who is located outside India i.e. defendants and has not appointed their Grievance Officer in India, the plaintiffs seek issuance of summons in the suit and notice in the applications through e-mail alone.
9. Forthereasonsstatedintheapplication,thesameisallowed.Summons in the suit and notice in the applications to the aforesaid defendants shall be issued in the manner indicated hereinabove.
I.A. 49763/2024 (exemption from filing originals, clear copies and documents with proper margins)
10. Subject to the plaintiffs’ filing the original/ translated/ legible copies of the documents and physical copy of the suit papers on which the plaintiffs may seek to place reliance, within four weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present.
11. The application is disposed of.
I.A. 49764/2024 (for exemption from advance service upondefendant no.1)
12. Thepresentapplicationhasbeenfiledonbehalfoftheplaintiffsseeking exemption from advance service to the defendant no. 1.
13. In view of the urgent ex parte relief sought by the plaintiff against the defendantno.1,theplaintiffisexemptedfromservingtheadvancecopytothe defendant.
14. The application is accordingly allowed.
CS(COMM) 1198/2024
15. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
16. Issue summons.
17. Summons are accepted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants no. 2, 8, 9,10, 12 and 13 who waive issuance of formal summons.
18. Summons be issued to the defendants no.3 and 4,being DNRs, through their designated Grievance Officers via e-mail alone. Summons be issued to defendant no.5, w
 | ||||
