Amendment of Plaint seeking addition, deletion, and correction in the description of the trademarks
The subject matter Suit:
The Plaintiff filed the subject matter Suit seeking the relief of inter alia infringement of their registered trademarks, passing off in which ex parte injunction was initially granted.
The Subject matter Application:
The Plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the Plaint , seeking addition, deletion, and correction in the description of the trademarks.
Facts leading to filing of the subject matter Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:
Few of the Defendants sought vacation of the injunction order on the grounds of misdescription of the Trademarks in the Plaint. According to the Defendants , as plaintiff did not present the true facts before the Court, ex parte injunction ought to have been vacated.
As Plaintiff noticed the afore mentioned descrepancies in the Plaint, the same has filed the subject matter Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
The Subject Matter Order:
The Hon'ble Single Judge, High Court of Delhi was pleased to allow the Application of the Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
The Relevant facts leading to grant of the amendments:
1. The Plaintiff sought the amendment of Plaint by amending the Plaintiff's Trade Mark as PATANJALI ALOE VERA JUICE instead of ALOE VERA JUICE as originally mentioned in the Plaint.
2.The same was held to be clerical mistake as Plaintiff has already filed registration Certificate pertaining to Registered Trade Mark PATANJALI ALOE VERA JUICE.
3.The Court has already passed injunction order restraining the Defendants from using the Trademark PATANJALI ALOE VERA JUICE.
4.Other amendments were sought to be incorporated in view of report of Local Commissioner.
5.The amendments sought do not in way amount to be withdrawal of admission. It is submitted that In the Plaint , the Trade mark was mentioned as ALOE VERA JUICE. However the same was not the same as mentioned in the registration certificate filed along with the Plaint.
6. The amendments were merely explanatory in nature and in any way do not alter the nature of Suit. It is submitted that the Plaihtitf by way to amendment sought to amend the description of said trade mark as PATANJALI ALOE VERA JUICE. It could not have been construed as admission as supporting documents have already been filed. In fact the same was merely explanatory in nature.
7.The proposed amendments were merely procedural in nature. The nature of amendment sought , did not alter the scope of the relief sought in the Plaint.
8.The Court allowed the amendment as the same was not prejudicial to the Defendants. The Court , while allowing the subject matter Application, also observed that while entertaining the amendment application, liberal approach is required to be taken.
Case Law Discussed:
Judgment date: 02.03.2023
Case No: CS Comm 314 of 2020
Neutral Citation No. NA
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Justice: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.
Case Title: Patanjali Ayurveda Limited Vs Yog Guru Ayurveda
DISCLAIMER:
This information is being shared in the public interest. It should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice as there may be possibility of error in perception, presentation and interpretation of facts and the law involved therein.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Mob:9990389539
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
#IP_Adjutor #Trademark #Copyright #Design #Patent #IPR #Intellectualpropertyright #Ipupdate #Ipnews
