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 ... Appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants to seize the offending goods - HELD THAT:- The Local Commissioner shall visit the premises of the defendants, without prior notice to them, and make an inventory of all the impugned materials. He shall also take into custody the aforesaid materials, which shall be sealed and returned to the defendants on superdari with a direction to produce them before this Court as and when directed - The Local Commissioner shall be entitled to take the assistance of the representatives of the plaintiffs and seek police aid if deemed necessary, to execute the commission. The SHO of the area concerned shall render all necessary assistance to the Local Commissioner in the execution of the commission, if such a request is made in that regard. The application is disposed of. 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.