M/S KAMDHENU ISPAT LIMITED Vs M/S SURYA ISPAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+	CS(COMM) 2/2016
	M/S KAMDHENU ISPAT LIMITED		..... Plaintiff
	Through	:Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
		Suman, Mr. Amit Chanchal Jha and
		Md. Sazad, Advs.
	versus
	M/S SURYA ISPAT		..... Defendant
	Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

	O R D E R
%	05.01.2016

I.A. No.66/2016 (u/Sec. 151 CPC)

Allowed, subject to just exception.

Application is disposed of.

I.A. No.65/2016 (u/Sec. 151 CPC)

Additional documents be filed within four weeks.

Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) No. 2/2016

Plaint be registered as a commercial suit. Summons in suit be issued

to the defendant through ordinary process, registered A.D. post and courier

service, returnable for 31st March, 2016 before the Joint Registrar. Process fee etc. be filed within a week.

I.A. No.63/2016 (u/O 39 R1 & 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark ‘KAMDHENU’ for steel bars and related goods since 1996. Even prior thereto, plaintiff had been using the said trade mark right from 1994. Defendant was a licensee of the plaintiff. License has

been terminated on 20th November, 2015 since defendant was not complying with the terms and conditions of the license. It is submitted that defendant continues to use the trade mark ‘KAMDHENU’ of the plaintiff. Defendant has no right to use the trade mark of the plaintiff.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel, perused the plaint and the documents annexed therewith and am of the view that plaintiff has succeeded in disclosing a, prima facie, case in its favour, inasmuch as, balance of convenience is also in its favour. In case, defendant is not restrained from using the mark ‘KAMDHENU’, plaintiff will suffer loss and injury. Accordingly, till further orders, defendant is restrained from using

the trade mark ‘KAMDHENU’ as its trade mark in any manner whatsoever or any other deceptively similar mark as that of plaintiff’s mark.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made within 15 days.

I.A. No. 64/2016 (u/O 26 R 9 CPC)

Plaintiff prays for appointment of a Local Commissioner. Having passed the Injunction order, I find it appropriate to appoint a Local Commissioner to make inventory of the infringing materials and seize the same. Accordingly, Mr. Eashan Ghosh, Advocate (Mobile No. 9650367140) is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the premises of defendant at M/s. Surya Ispat, 270, Sector – C, Urla Industrial Estate, Raipur, Chattishgarh – 493221 and make inventory of the infringing materials including dies, moulds etc. and seize the same. Thereafter, Local Commissioner shall handover the seized goods/material to the defendant on Superdari with the direction to produce the same in Court without tampering the seal, as and when directed by the Court. If any resistance is put by the defendant or any other person on its behalf, Local Commissioner will be entitled to seek police assistance. In case the premises is found locked, Local Commissioner shall be at liberty to break open the locks. Fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) besides

other miscellaneous expenses. Local Commissioner shall submit his report

within two weeks from the date of execution of commission.

Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JANUARY 05, 2016 rb