Amendment of Plaint: Passing off to Infringement Action
Introduction:The present case pertains to a trademark dispute between Bajaj Resources Limited ("Plaintiffs") and Goyal Herbals Pvt. Ltd. ("Defendants"). The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the mark ‘ALMOND DROPS’, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs sought to amend their plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to include newly obtained trademark registrations and other relevant facts.
Factual Background of the Proceedings:Institution of Suit (2016):The suit was filed by the Plaintiffs in November 2016 for infringement of trademark, trade dress, and copyright, as well as for passing off.The Plaintiffs did not have trademark registration for ‘ALMOND DROPS’ at the time of filing.
Defendants’ Defense:The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs could not claim statutory rights over the descriptive words ‘ALMOND DROPS’, the picture of almonds, and the golden-brown color combination. The Plaintiffs were denied an ex-parte ad-interim injunction due to the lack of trademark registration.
Proceedings Prior to the Amendment Application:2018: Issues framed. 2019-2022: Plaintiffs' witness cross-examined. 2023: Mediation attempt failed. 2024: Plaintiffs filed the present application to amend the plaint.
Amendments Sought by the Plaintiffs:Inclusion of three trademark registrations obtained after filing the suit.Details of an interim order and decree in a related case involving the Plaintiffs and the bottle manufacturer of the Defendants.Updated sales and advertising figures for Bajaj Almond Drops Hair Oil.Changes in the Plaintiffs’ corporate structure.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments: The amendments relate to events that occurred after the trial commenced. The Plaintiffs could not have introduced these facts earlier despite due diligence.The new trademark registrations grant statutory rights, allowing the Plaintiffs to sue for trademark infringement. If the amendments are not allowed, the Plaintiffs would have to file a separate suit. The amendments do not change the nature or character of the suit. No Prejudice to Defendants: No interim injunction is in place, meaning Defendants will not be prejudiced by a delay. Legal Precedents Cited:Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. [(2022) 16 SCC 1]: Courts should allow amendments that help determine the real controversy. Pravesh Narula v. Raj Kumar Jain [2024 SCC OnLine Del 7537]: Allowed amendment even after the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence.
Defendants’ Arguments: Plaintiffs waited until 2021 to apply for trademark registration despite the Court's earlier observations. During cross-examination, the Plaintiffs’ witness was unaware of any trademark applications. Plaintiffs had earlier filed for additional documents in 2022 but did not submit trademark registration details. Amendments Would Change the Nature of the Suit: Originally, the case was based on passing off. Now, it seeks to introduce statutory trademark infringement claims. Bad Faith Attempt to Strengthen the Case. The amendments were sought to bolster a weak case. The delay in proceedings would prejudice the Defendants.
The Court analyzed various legal precedents on amendments of pleadings. Life Insurance Corporation (2022):Established that amendments should be allowed if necessary for determining the real controversy.Amendments should be denied only if:They introduce a time-barred claim.They change the nature of the suit.They are sought in bad faith.Pravesh Narula (2024):Allowed amendment after trial commencement to include a supervening event (trademark registration).The amendment did not introduce a new cause of action, only strengthened the existing one. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal v. K.K. Modi [(2006) 4 SCC 385]:Reaffirmed that courts should permit amendments that clarify the real dispute.Courts should avoid a hyper-technical approach.
Reasoning of the Judge: Hon’ble Court considered the Plaintiffs’ right to bring a fresh suit on the basis of new trademark registrations. The Court reasoned:No Change in Suit’s Nature:The original suit involved trademark infringement and passing off.The new trademark registrations only add statutory protection to the Plaintiffs’ claims.Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings:If denied, the Plaintiffs would file a fresh suit.Allowing the amendment saves judicial time.Defendants Not Prejudiced:There was no interim injunction, meaning Defendants were not restricted from continuing business.
Past Precedents Supported Plaintiffs:Prior cases permitted post-trial amendments for supervening events.The present amendment met the legal threshold for allowing changes.
Decision:The Court allowed the amendment of the plaint.Plaintiffs were permitted to file the amended
Concluding Note:The judgment reinforces that amendments that help determine the real controversy should be allowed, provided they do not unfairly prejudice the other party. The principle of avoiding multiplicity of litigation played a crucial role in the Court’s decision. By permitting the Plaintiffs to update their pleadings, the Court ensured that all relevant issues would be adjudicated in a single proceeding, thereby promoting judicial efficiency.
Case Title: Bajaj Resources Limited & Anr. Vs. Goyal Herbals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Date of Order: January 22, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1564/2016
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:442
Court Name: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
[Patent and Trademark Attorney]
High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment