2015 (8) TMI 1540 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Grants Permanent Injunction Against Trademark Infringement

The court directed the registration of the plaint as a suit, ordered the issuance of summons to the defendants, granted a permanent injunction in favor of ... Ex parte ad interim injunction - interim injunctive relief under Order XXXIX CPC - trade mark infringement - passing off - well-known mark - dilution of trade mark - use of deceptively similar mark - delivery up and seizure of infringing goods - appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC - service of summons and pleadingsEx parte ad interim injunction - interim injunctive relief under Order XXXIX CPC - use of deceptively similar mark - trade mark infringement - dilution of trade mark - well-known mark - Grant of ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, marketing or offering for sale goods using the impugned Form Strip Logo or any deceptively similar logo. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the plaint and the sample products produced by the parties and was satisfied that the plaintiffs have pleaded proprietary rights in the Form Strip Logo, including registration in class 25 and extensive use and promotion leading to goodwill and recognition. Having found that the defendants' use of an identical or deceptively similar form strip logo on identical goods is likely to represent misappropriation, dilution and passing off of the plaintiffs' mark and poses an imminent threat to the plaintiffs' business, the Court concluded that interim injunctive relief was warranted. The restraint extends to the defendants and their directors, officers, employees, agents and distributors. Directions for compliance with the procedural requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC were given to be complied with within two weeks from receipt of the order.Plaintiffs granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants and their associates from using the impugned Form Strip Logo or any identical/deceptively similar strip logo on relevant goods, subject to compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.Appointment of Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC - delivery up and seizure of infringing goods - Appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' manufacturing premises to inventory, seize and seal the impugned materials and produce them before the Court. - HELD THAT: - The plaintiffs' application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for execution of a commission to inspect the defendants' premises and take custody of infringing goods was allowed. The Court appointed Mr. Sumesh Dhawan, Advocate, as Local Commissioner with authority to visit the defendant No.4's premises without prior notice, make an inventory, take custody of and seal the impugned materials, and place them on superdari to the defendants with directions to produce them when called. The Local Commissioner may take assistance of the plaintiffs' representatives and seek police aid; the SHO of the area is directed to assist if requested. The Commissioner is to file his report within two weeks after execution and his fee was fixed, with out-of-pocket expenses to be borne by the plaintiffs.Local Commissioner appointed with specified powers to inventory, seize, seal and report on the impugned materials at the defendants' premises; directions given regarding assistance, superdari and fee.Service of summons and pleadings - Registration of the plaint as a suit and directions for issuance of summons, filing of process fee and timelines for written statements, replication and framing of issues. - HELD THAT: - The Court ordered registration of the plaint as a suit and directed issuance of summons to the defendants upon the plaintiffs' payment of process fee within one week, service to be effected by speed post, courier and dasti, and returnable before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings. The summons were to state the timeline for filing written statements with copies to the plaintiffs, who may file replications before the next hearing. The Court fixed a date for framing of issues and directed exchange and production in Court of proposed issues in advance.Plaintiff's plaint registered; summons to be issued on payment of process fee with specified modes and timelines; directions given for filing of written statements, replications and framing and exchange of proposed issues.Exemption from filing certified/typed/legible documents - Applications for exemption from filing original/certified/typed/legible copies of documents annexed to the plaint allowed subject to filing the originals/certified/typed/legible copies within four weeks. - HELD THAT: - The Court allowed the exemption applications on condition that the plaintiffs file the original, certified, typed or legible copies of the documents annexed with the plaint within four weeks. The applications were disposed of subject to this compliance.Exemption applications allowed and disposed of on condition that the plaintiffs file the required original/certified/typed/legible documents within four weeks.Final Conclusion: The Court registered the plaintiffs' suit, granted ex parte ad interim injunctive relief restraining the defendants from using the impugned Form Strip Logo or any deceptively similar mark on the relevant goods, appointed a Local Commissioner to inventory and seize impugned materials at the defendant's premises, directed procedural steps for service and pleadings and allowed the plaintiffs' exemption applications subject to filing of original/certified/typed/legible documents within four weeks. Issues:1. Registration of plaint as a suit2. Issuance of summons to defendants3. Permanent injunction sought by plaintiffs4. Appointment of Local Commissioner for seizing offending goodsAnalysis:1. Registration of Plaint as a Suit:The court directed the registration of the plaint as a suit and ordered the issuance of summons to the defendants upon the plaintiffs filing the process fee within one week. The defendants were to be served by speed post, courier, and dasti, returnable before the Joint Registrar for completion of service, pleadings, and admission or denial of documents. The court scheduled framing of issues for a later date and required the parties to exchange their proposed issues one week before the hearing.2. Issuance of Summons to Defendants:The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, damages, and other relief. The plaintiffs, a German company and an Indian company, claimed rights over the 'PUMA' brand, a well-known sports brand selling footwear, apparel, and accessories globally. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, a private company and its directors, were using a logo on their sports shoes identical to the plaintiffs' Form Strip Logo, leading to confusion and dilution of the plaintiffs' trademark. The court found merit in the plaintiffs' claims and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed logo on their products.3. Permanent Injunction Sought by Plaintiffs:In response to the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or marketing products, including sports shoes, using the Form Strip Logo or any similar logo that could infringe the plaintiffs' trademark. The court directed compliance with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 within two weeks, emphasizing the importance of protecting the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.4. Appointment of Local Commissioner for Seizing Offending Goods:The plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the defendants' premises and seize the infringing goods. The court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute the commission at the specified premises, directing the seizure of offending materials without prior notice to the defendants. The Local Commissioner was authorized to seek police assistance if necessary and was instructed to file a report within two weeks of executing the commission.In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the registration of the plaint as a suit, issuance of summons to defendants, grant of a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for seizing the offending goods, reflecting a comprehensive legal analysis and protection of the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.