Court sets aside amendment order due to lack of diligence, impermissible jurisdiction grounds. Appeal allowed with no costs.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order permitting the amendment of the plaint and the impleadment of Priority Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant. The Court emphasized that the respondents failed to demonstrate due diligence in raising the amendments before the commencement of the trial and that the amendments sought to introduce new grounds for jurisdiction, which was impermissible. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
2. Proper and necessary parties in the suit.
3. Bar under Section 53 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
4. Bar under Section 48(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
5. Proper institution and verification of the plaint.
6. Suppression of material facts and clean hands.
7. Acquiescence, delay, and laches.
8. Infringement of the trademark under Section 29(1) and Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
9. Monopoly over a dictionary word with descriptive meaning and common usage.
10. Reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff No.1's trademark in India.
11. Unfair advantage or detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the Plaintiff No.1's trademark.
12. Passing off by the Defendant.
13. Honest adoption and prior use of the Defendant's trade name.
14. Entitlement to relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The Court examined whether it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The respondents argued that the Court had jurisdiction because the respondent No.2 carried on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant contested this, stating that the mere presence of a branch office in Delhi was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The Court found that the trial commenced on March 4, 2010, and the respondents could have incorporated relevant details before this date. The Court concluded that the application for amendment of the plaint to include new grounds for jurisdiction was not permissible after the trial had commenced.

2. Proper and Necessary Parties:
The appellant filed an application seeking deletion of respondent No.2 from the array of parties, arguing that respondent No.2 was not a registered proprietor/user of the trademark and thus not a necessary or proper party. The Court examined the role of respondent No.2 and found that the respondents had not demonstrated the necessity of including respondent No.2 as a party.

3. Bar under Section 53 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The appellant argued that respondent No.2, being a non-registered user of the trademark, was barred from filing a suit for infringement under Section 53 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court considered this argument in light of the overall context of the case.

4. Bar under Section 48(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
The appellant contended that respondent No.1 was barred from claiming benefits of the use of the trademark by respondent No.2 under Section 48(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court evaluated this contention alongside the other issues raised.

5. Proper Institution and Verification of the Plaint:
The appellant questioned whether the plaint was properly instituted and verified by a competent and authorized person. The Court reviewed the documentation and procedures followed in the filing of the plaint.

6. Suppression of Material Facts and Clean Hands:
The appellant accused the respondents of suppressing material facts and not approaching the Court with clean hands. The Court scrutinized the respondents' conduct and the completeness of their disclosures.

7. Acquiescence, Delay, and Laches:
The appellant claimed that the suit was barred due to acquiescence, delay, and laches on the part of the respondents. The Court assessed the timeline of events and the respondents' actions to determine if these defenses were applicable.

8. Infringement of the Trademark:
The Court examined whether the appellant had infringed the trademark of respondent No.1 under Section 29(1) and Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The analysis included a review of the similarities between the trademarks and the likelihood of confusion.

9. Monopoly over a Dictionary Word:
The respondents claimed monopoly over the word "VOGUE," which the appellant argued was a common dictionary word with a descriptive meaning. The Court considered the distinctiveness and usage of the word in the context of trademark law.

10. Reputation and Goodwill:
The respondents asserted that their trademark "VOGUE" had attained significant reputation and goodwill in India. The Court evaluated evidence of the trademark's recognition and market presence.

11. Unfair Advantage or Detriment:
The Court analyzed whether the appellant's use of the trade name "JUST IN VOGUE" took unfair advantage of or was detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the respondents' trademark.

12. Passing Off:
The respondents claimed that the appellant was passing off its services as those of the respondents by using a similar trade name. The Court assessed the likelihood of deception and confusion among consumers.

13. Honest Adoption and Prior Use:
The appellant argued that its trade name was an honest adoption and had been used prior to the respondents' use in India. The Court considered the evidence of prior use and the intent behind the adoption of the trade name.

14. Entitlement to Relief:
The Court determined whether the respondents were entitled to the reliefs sought, including a permanent injunction, rendition of accounts, and delivery/destruction of infringing goods.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order permitting the amendment of the plaint and the impleadment of Priority Marketing Pvt. Ltd. as a defendant. The Court emphasized that the respondents failed to demonstrate due diligence in raising the amendments before the commencement of the trial and that the amendments sought to introduce new grounds for jurisdiction, which was impermissible. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

---