IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 1470/2013
KRBL LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. A.A. Suman, Adv.
versus
RAKESH SETHI ..... Defendant
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
29.07.2013
IA. 11734/2013 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CS(OS) No. 1470/2013
Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
Issue summons to the defendant by ordinary and speed post,
returnable for 19.09.2013.
I.A. 11733/2013 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)
Issue notice to the defendant by ordinary process and speed post,
returnable on 19th September, 2013.
This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The
case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, through its predecessors, in
the year 1993 adopted and started using the trade mark/ label INDIA GATE
with device of INDIA GATE in respect of rice business. The plaintiff has
been carrying on
CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 1 of 3
its business in India as well as overseas, the details of which are
mentioned in para 6 of the plaint. The application for registration of
said trademark is already pending since 17.03.1999 and other applications
are also pending claiming the user since 1993. The plaintiff is also
promoting the said trade mark through various print media as well as
entertainment channels e.g. Star T.V., Aaj Tak, NDTV and India TV.
According to the plaintiff the said trade mark has acquired primary
significant with the goods and business of the plaintiff and in view of
the unique goodwill and reputation it has earned, it has become well-
known trade mark within the meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999.
The details of the various applications made by the plaintiff for
registration of its trade mark INDIA GATE in various classes has been
elaborated in para 11 of the plaint. The sales of the plaintiff under the
trade mark and label of INDIA GATE are elaborated in para 16 of the
plaint. It now alleged that the defendant has recently adopted the device
of INDIA GATE in relation to his goods and business and that the trade
mark/label /domain name of the defendant in relation to its impugned
goods and business is identical with the plaintiff?s trade mark in each
and every respect phonetically, visually, structurally and its basic
idea. It is further stated that the action of the defendant is in
violation of the plaintiff?s aforesaid trade mark and thereby passing off
to enable others to pass off their goods and business as that of the
plaintiff.
The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour. Balance
of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. In case an ex parte ad
interim
CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 2 of 3
injunction is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and
injury.
In view of the above, the defendant, his agents and servants are
restrained by way of an ex parte ad interim injunction from using the
trade mark INDIA GATE with the device INDIA GATE or any other trade
mark/label/domain name identical with or deceptively similar thereto in
relation to their goods and business of grains, spices, tea and allied
and other goods till further orders.
Plaintiff shall comply with provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC
within a period of five days.
JAYANT NATH, J
JULY 29, 2013/RB
CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 3 of 3
$ A31
CS(OS) 1470/2013
KRBL LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. A.A. Suman, Adv.
versus
RAKESH SETHI ..... Defendant
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
29.07.2013
IA. 11734/2013 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CS(OS) No. 1470/2013
Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
Issue summons to the defendant by ordinary and speed post,
returnable for 19.09.2013.
I.A. 11733/2013 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)
Issue notice to the defendant by ordinary process and speed post,
returnable on 19th September, 2013.
This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The
case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, through its predecessors, in
the year 1993 adopted and started using the trade mark/ label INDIA GATE
with device of INDIA GATE in respect of rice business. The plaintiff has
been carrying on
CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 1 of 3
its business in India as well as overseas, the details of which are
mentioned in para 6 of the plaint. The application for registration of
said trademark is already pending since 17.03.1999 and other applications
are also pending claiming the user since 1993. The plaintiff is also
promoting the said trade mark through various print media as well as
entertainment channels e.g. Star T.V., Aaj Tak, NDTV and India TV.
According to the plaintiff the said trade mark has acquired primary
significant with the goods and business of the plaintiff and in view of
the unique goodwill and reputation it has earned, it has become well-
known trade mark within the meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999.
The details of the various applications made by the plaintiff for
registration of its trade mark INDIA GATE in various classes has been
elaborated in para 11 of the plaint. The sales of the plaintiff under the
trade mark and label of INDIA GATE are elaborated in para 16 of the
plaint. It now alleged that the defendant has recently adopted the device
of INDIA GATE in relation to his goods and business and that the trade
mark/label /domain name of the defendant in relation to its impugned
goods and business is identical with the plaintiff?s trade mark in each
and every respect phonetically, visually, structurally and its basic
idea. It is further stated that the action of the defendant is in
violation of the plaintiff?s aforesaid trade mark and thereby passing off
to enable others to pass off their goods and business as that of the
plaintiff.
The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour. Balance
of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. In case an ex parte ad
interim
CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 2 of 3
injunction is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and
injury.
In view of the above, the defendant, his agents and servants are
restrained by way of an ex parte ad interim injunction from using the
trade mark INDIA GATE with the device INDIA GATE or any other trade
mark/label/domain name identical with or deceptively similar thereto in
relation to their goods and business of grains, spices, tea and allied
and other goods till further orders.
Plaintiff shall comply with provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC
within a period of five days.
JAYANT NATH, J
JULY 29, 2013/RB
CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 3 of 3
$ A31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 1470/2013 and IA No. 11733/2013
KRBL LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Ajay Maitabh Suman and Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate
versus
RAKESH SETHI ..... Defendant
Through Defendant-in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
19.09.2013
Defendant has appeared in person. A photocopy of his identify card,
namely, the driving licence is taken on record. Defendant states that he
does not intend to use the impugned trade mark ?INDIA GATE? or the domain
name ?www.indiagategroup.com? or ?India Gate Industries?. He submits
that he will abide by this undertaking.
In view of the said undertaking given by the defendant, the present
suit is decreed in terms of para 42(a) of the plaint. The defendant shall
abide by the statement made in Court. The plaintiff does not press other
reliefs.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
rb
$ A8
CS(OS) 1470/2013 and IA No. 11733/2013
KRBL LTD ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr. Ajay Maitabh Suman and Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate
versus
RAKESH SETHI ..... Defendant
Through Defendant-in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
19.09.2013
Defendant has appeared in person. A photocopy of his identify card,
namely, the driving licence is taken on record. Defendant states that he
does not intend to use the impugned trade mark ?INDIA GATE? or the domain
name ?www.indiagategroup.com? or ?India Gate Industries?. He submits
that he will abide by this undertaking.
In view of the said undertaking given by the defendant, the present
suit is decreed in terms of para 42(a) of the plaint. The defendant shall
abide by the statement made in Court. The plaintiff does not press other
reliefs.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
rb
$ A8
