2015 (8) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... courier, and dasti as well, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 19th October, 2015 for completion of service and pleadings as also for admission and denial of documents. 3. The summons to be issued to the defendants shall indicate that written statements be filed within the prescribed timeline, with copies to the other side, who shall file replications thereto before the next date of hearing. 4. List in Court on 3rd February, 2016 for framing of issues. 5. The parties shall exchange their respective issues proposed to be framed one week before the next date of hearing and produce the same in Court. I.A.17472/2015 (by the plaintiffs u/O XXXIX R 1 and 2 CPC) 1. Notice for the date fixed. 2. The plaintiffs have instituted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2-13 have been set out in para 7 of the plaint. The amounts spent by the plaintiffs on advertisement and promotion of their products worldwide for the year 2012-13 have been set out in para 8 of the plaint. 5. The subject matter of the present suit is the plaintiffs' rights in the Form Strip Logo (....), that appears on both sides of the shoes manufactured, marketed and sold by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid Form Strip Logo (....) was created by the plaintiffs in the year 1956 and it appears in a unique style on both sides of the shoes manufactured by the plaintiffs thus making it one of the distinctive source identifiers of the shoes that are manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs under the mark, "PUMA" and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Logo (....). On making enquiries, the plaintiffs learnt that apart from the said products, the defendants were manufacturing and marketing various other models of sports shoes on which they were using the impugned logo (....). A comparision of the defendants' products, vis-à-vis that of the plaintiffs has been set out in para 24 of the plaint. Learned counsel submits that adoption of the impugned logo (....) by the defendats, which is identical to the plaintiffs' Form Strip Logo (....) is a malafide and a deliberate attempt on their part to misrepresent to the public at large that their products are in someway associated with the plaintiffs. He contends that such intended use of the plaintiffs' form strip logo (....) by the defendan....