CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016 Page 1 of 11

$~27

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 25.05.2022

+

CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016

JIVA INSTITUTE OF VEDIC SCIENCE

& CULTURE AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Tejveer

Singh Bhatia and Mr. Rohan Swarup, Advocates.

versus

PUNEET CHHATWAL & ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate

with Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Arjit Benjamin and

Ms. Aishwariya Chaturvedi, Advocates for R-1 to

5. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with

Ms.Meghna Mishra, Mr. Arjit Benjamin and

Ms. Aishwariya Chaturvedi, Advocates for R-6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1.

Present contempt petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002088

CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016 Page 2 of 11

advertisement and marketing of products under the mark ‘JIVA’

and proper in the interest of justice.”

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002088

CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016 Page 3 of 11

2.

Factual exposition, as set out by the Petitioners/Plaintiffs is that vide

order dated 17.10.2006, this Court had granted an ex parte ad interim

injunction against Respondent No.6 herein (Defendant No.1 in the suit) and

its Managing Director (Defendant No.2 in the suit), restraining them from

adopting and/or using the trademark ‘JIVA’ or any other identical or

deceptively similar or confusing mark, in relation to their goods and services

and from manufacturing, advertising and marketing, etc. any goods or

services under the said trademark. In an appeal against the said order, the

Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.05.2008 partly allowed the

appeal, whereby the order dated 17.10.2006, restraining the Appellants

therein from using the trademark ‘JIVA’ for their Spas run in the hotels

established by them, was vacated, subject to certain conditions, while the

order to the extent it restrained the Appellants from selling, using or offering

for sale/use any ayurvedic product under the trademark ‘JIVA’, was

confirmed.

3.

In 2014, it is averred, that when it came to the knowledge of the

Petitioners that the orders were being violated by Respondent No.6, a

contempt petition being CCP(O) No.126/2014 was filed, wherein, after

hearing the parties extensively, the Court had taken on record the statement

and assurance on behalf of the Respondents therein including Respondent

No.6 that they would not use the mark ‘JIVA’ in relation to disputed goods

or for any cosmetic, soaps, ayurvedic, non ayurvedic, or any other allied and

cognate goods, except in respect of ‘JIVA’ for Spa and in relation to pillow,

towels, handkerchiefs and other articles related to the Spas.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002088

CCP(O) 33/2022 in CS(COMM) 602/2016 Page 4 of 11

4.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that recently, it has come

to the notice of the Petitioners that Respondent No.6 has been advertising

and marketing its non-ayurvedic products such as towels, under the

trademark ‘JIVA’ on the websites of its hotels as well as through

e-mails. Along with the pictorial presentation of the facilities available in the

Spas, Respondent No.6 is providing a written description of variety of Spa

services and other therapeutic treatments available, including description of

the ayurvedic products used therein, thereby indirectly advertising the

products, against which there is a restraint order, leading to a deceptive

asso