FAO-IPD 25/2021Page 1 of 9

$~39

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 31^st August, 2022

+

FAO-IPD 25/2021 & CM APPL. 21867/2016

INTEX ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR...... Appellants

Through:

Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. Avinash

Kumar Sharma and Mr. R. Abhishek, Advocates.

versus

SANDEEP KUMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Neha Garg, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JYOTI SINGH, J (ORAL)

1.

Present appeal assails an order dated 15.03.2016 passed by

learned Trial Court in suit being TM No. 11/2016, whereby applications

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the Appellants and under Order

39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the Respondent respectively, have been disposed of,

partly allowing the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC qua the product

footwears, while continuing the injunction order for use of the trademark

‘VINTEX’ for electronic items.

2.

Appellants herein were Plaintiffs and Respondent herein was

Defendant in the suit and parties hereinafter are referred to by their litigating

status before this Court.

3.

Appellants claim to have adopted the trademark/trade name/trading

style INTEX in the year 1996 and have been using the same continuously for

their goods ever since, along with its various stylised/artistic formats/labels.

The trademark was originally conceived and adopted in respect of consumer

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003649

FAO-IPD 25/2021Page 2 of 9

electronic products, IT peripheral products and accessories, mobile phones,

computers, laptops, batteries, etc. and has neither any obvious meaning nor

found in any dictionary of English language.

4.

It is averred in the appeal that Appellants are registered proprietors of

trademark INTEX and its formatives across several Classes, which are valid

and subsisting. The artwork involved in the labels and the stylised formatives

of the trademark INTEX are original ‘artistic works’ and the copyright thereof

vests in the Appellants. Appellants are the owners and proprietors of the

copyright which is registered under No. A-112771 of 2014.

5.

It is stated that Appellants have immense reputation and goodwill in the

registered trademark and have expended substantial amount of money on its

advertisement. There is a huge network of dealers and distributors and

Appellants have a pan-India presence. The reputation attached to the

trademark is evident from the sales figures as well as the advertisement

expenses placed on record.

6.

Respondent, on the other hand, it is averred, has adopted the

trademark/label VINTEX/

and is engaged in manufacturing, selling

and marketing footwear, rubber and PVC sheets, asbestos, mica, gum and

goods made from these materials, etc. In February, 2016, Appellants learnt of

the business activities of the Respondent and found that it had filed

applications for registration in respect of VINTEX trademark/label in Classes

17, 25 and 35.

7.

On the ground that the impugned trademark was identical/deceptively

similar to the Appellants’ trademark, phonetically, structurally and in its basic

idea and was likely to cause confusion amongst the purchasers, Appellants

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003649

FAO-IPD 25/2021Page 3 of 9

filed a suit alleging infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, etc.

and seeking permanent injunction against the Respondent.

8.

As the chronology goes, vide order dated 10.02.2016, the Trial Court

granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Appellants, restraining

the Respondent from using the trademark VINTEX in relation to the

impugned goods and other allied/related products and also appointed a Local

Commissioner. Respondent thereafter filed an application under Order 39

Rule 4 CPC and sought vacation of the ex-parte injunction order. Vide the

impugned order, both the applications have been disposed of