2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 484
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3252 of 2024 ================================================================
KAJARIA CERAMICS LIMITED & ANR.
Versus SONEX TILES PVT. LTD. & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR S.S.RANA, SR. COUNSEL, WITH MRS BINDRA RANA, WITH MR DARSHANKUMAR R KABRA(11246) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR ZK SHAIKH(5804) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MR. J. Z. SHAIKH(14308) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MS RUSHVI N SHAH(5881) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 MS. BUSHRA M. PATHAN(14278) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 27/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
2. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed by the persons, who are defendants in Trade Mark [“T.M.” for short] Suit No.2 of 2020 and plaintiffs in T.M. Suit No.3 of 2020. A perusal of the plaints of both the suits indicates the reliefs sought by the rival claimants namely, the petitioners and the respondents herein are relevant to be noted hereunder:-
“Commercial Trade Mark Suit No.4 of 2017.
35(A)This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the defendants are not entitled to interfere or make any hindrance or obstacle in the plaintiffs’ established business of Tiles and other allied & cognate goods and services thereof under the trade marks KERA / KERA TILE / ‘Keravit’ / Keravit and/or under any other trade marks / names / brands / domain names / website containing the words KERA of the plaintiffs; and (B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare that the threat issued by the defendants vide their Advocate’s letter dated 27-7-2017 are nothing but ‘unlawful and illegal threat’ and the same is unjust, unwarranted, uncalled for and unjustifiable and actionable per se within the meaning of Sec.142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; and (C) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the defendants by themselves or through their Directors, Officers, servants, associates and all other persons connected with them by perpetual injunction from making in any manner obstacle, hindrance or interference in the plaintiffs’ established business of Tiles and other allied & cognate goods and services thereof under the trade marks KERA / KERA TILE / ‘Keravit’ / Keravit and/or under any other trade marks / names / brands / domain names / website containing the words KERA of the plaintiffs; and (D) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the defendants by themselves or through their Directors, Officers, servants, associates and all other persons connected with them by perpetual injunction from issuing unlawful and illegal threats in any manner by publishing or circulating any writings, notices or otherwise threatening the plaintiffs for the actions of infringement of trade mark or for the passing off against the plaintiffs’ established business of Tiles and other allied & cognate goods and services thereof under the trade marks KERA / KERA TILE / ‘Keravit’ / Keravit and/or under any other trade marks / names / brands / domain names / website containing the words KERA of the plaintiffs; and (E) The defendants may pleased be ordered and decreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) to the plaintiffs for the illegal acts of issuance of unlawful and illegal threat and thereby committed illegal acts of obstacle, interference and hindrance in the plaintiffs’ established business of Tiles and other allied & cognate goods and services thereof under the trade marks KERA / KERA TILE / ‘Keravit’ / Keravit and/or under any other trade marks / names / brands / domain names / website containing the words KERA of the plaintiffs and caused harm, loss, prejudice, embarrassment and mental agony to the plaintiffs; and (F) The cost of the present suit may kindly be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendants;”
“Commercial Trade Mark Suit No.5 of 2017.
37a. pass a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant by itself, its partners, directors proprietors, agents, servants, licensees, sub-licensees, franchisees, sub-franchisees, representatives and employees or any one claiming under it, directly or indirectly from infringing the plaintiff No.1’s registered trade mark KEROVIT and Kerovit by using the impugned mark Keravit in relation to its goods and business;
b. pass a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant by itself, its partners, directors proprietors, agents, servants, licensees, sub-licensees, franchisees, sub-franchisees, representatives and employees or any one