$~58 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.11.2024 + RFA(COMM) 493/2024 M/S SAGAR RATNA RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Aman Vasisth with Ms. Shanjali Gupta, Advs.

versus HILL VIEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT .....RESPONDENT Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE, J (ORAL)

CM APPL. 67289/2024 –Ex.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 493/2024 & CM APPL. 67290/2024 –Stay.

3. The present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code’) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Courts, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS(COMM)477/2024.

4. Briefly put, the appellant/ plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction, RFA(COMM) 493/2024 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed recovery, damages and interest against the respondent/ defendant, before the learned Trial Court, inter alia seeking the grant of following reliefs:

“(i) A decree for mandatory injunction restraining the defendants their employees, successors, executors, agents, administrators, representatives from running and operating the restaurant business by using the trademark of the plaintiff i.e. "SAGAR", "RATNA" AND "SAGAR RATNA" on the patterns, format, knowledge, trade secrets etc. or any other similar, identical or deceptively similar mark of the plaintiff; AND/OR (ii) A decree of pe1manent injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, successors, executors, agents, administrators, representatives from using, appropriating, exploiting, displaying, dealing with registered trademark and copyright i.e. "SAGAR", "RATNA" AND "SAGAR RATNA", trade secret, confidential data, recipes, technical know-how, business format, etc. in any manner whatsoever of the plaintiff or any other similar, identical or deceptively similar mark of the plaintiff; AND/OR (iii) A decree of Rs.11,09,471/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Nine Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy One Only/-) outstanding as on 07.09.2024 in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants and direct the defendants to pay along with pendent lite and future interest @ 18 % per annum to the Plaintiff; AND/OR (iv) Pass a decree of damages against the Defendants, jointly and severally thereby directing the defendants to pay 50% of the total sales generated since December, 2022 till the date of actual realization in favor of the plaintiff;”

5. The appellant in the said suit also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking the grant of following reliefs:

“a) Grant an ad-interim & ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants, their employees, agents, and every person in charge of and for the conduct of the business and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, dealers, or otherwise from using rendering services, selling or offering for sale or advertising the restaurants, goods or services under the trade mark 'SAGAR','RATNA', 'SAGAR RATNA' or any other trade mark as well as the artistic ( copyright) work belonging to Plaintiff as being similar / identical with and/or deceptively or phonetically or visually similar thereto; AND RFA(COMM) 493/2024 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed b) Grant ad-interim/ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants and all other persons concerned, their agents, employees and every person in charge of and for the conduct of the business and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, dealers, or otherwise however from infringing the registered trademark, copyright and other intellectual prope1iy of the plaintiff; AND c) Direct the defendants and all other persons responsible to immediately remove: and withdraw all such representation, display, publications, etc.,