TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of copyright, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, and other reliefs. The Plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor of the mark 'BOLT' used in relation to ride-hailing, food and grocery delivery, rental of cars, e-bikes and scooters, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations/docks, worldwide. The Plaintiff has obtained various registrations for the mark 'BOLT' in several jurisdictions and the details of the same are set out in the Plaint. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Defendants are using the identical mark 'BOLT', along with the logo thereof, in relation to an identical business of provision of charging points for EVs. The competing logos used by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are depicted below: 5. As set out in the Plaint, the Plaintiff is an Estonia-based company and claims to be a global market leader in transportation and mobility services that include vehicles for hire, micro mobility, car-sharing, Electric Vehicle charging stations/docks and various food and grocery delivery services, etc. It operates in more than 400 cities in over 45 countries in Europe, Africa, Western Asia, South and Latin America. The Pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pct. Ltd. and Ors. [I.A. 11348/2021 in CS(COMM.) 415/2021 decided on 8th September, 2021], wherein, relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ganga Taro Vazirani v. Deepak Raheja [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 195], the Court rejected the application seeking exemption under Section 12A of CCA. 8. On the basis of the above judgments, it is submitted by the Defendants that, with effect from 20th August, 2022, the Supreme Court has held that pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A is mandatory and that no suit can be entertained without having resorted to pre-litigation mediation in accordance with Section 12A of the CCA. 9. In response to this preliminary objection, Ms. Sukumar, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff makes the following submissions: i. Paragraph 81 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation (supra) clarifies that when an urgent interim relief is being sought, the suit can be filed without resorting to pre-litigation mediation. ii. In the present case, a legal notice dated 24th May, 2022 was served upon the Defendants whereby the Plaintiff has clearly informed the Defendants that the Plaintiff is willing to amicably resolve the dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt judgment in Patil Automation (supra), wherein it was observed as follows: "61. Timelines are contemplated, both in the matter of pleadings and also other steps to be taken. They are geared to ensure an expeditious culmination of the proceedings. Originally, the specified value within the meaning of Section 2(i) was fixed as 'which shall not be less than one crore rupees'. Within three years of the birth of the Act, Parliament found that it was necessary to reduce the specified value from the sum of Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 3 lakhs, which is what is reflected in the present avatar of the definition of the word 'specified value'. It is simultaneously with the reduction of the specified value and by the same amendment that Section 12A came to be inserted. We have already noticed the Statement of Objects and Reasons, which led to the amendment. On a conspectus of the Act, as from its birth till the Law-giver stepped-in with the amendment in 2018, the Act read with the Rules represent an economic experiment as much as it deals more directly with a vital aspect of administration of justice. Commercial disputes have been clearly identified. The value has been fixed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Court as it is done prior to the institution of the suit" 13. Similarly, with regards to the object of Section 12A, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Deepak Raheja v. Ganga Taro Vazirani [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3124] has also observed as under: "14. The scheme of Section 12A of the Act (reproduced earlier) is thus. A commercial suit of the specified value that does not contemplate any urgent interim relief shall not be instituted unless the party exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by Rules. The Central Government will authorise the authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for the purposes of pre-institution mediation. The mediation process is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of application. The period may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties. The period of pre-institution mediation shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, and Section 12A(3) excludes the period taken for mediation from the limitation period for filing the suit. Under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remedy is more appropriate. Section 12A segregates commercial disputes depending on their urgency. Making segregation at the inception of a commercial dispute is a considered legislative instrument to speed up the disposal of commercial disputes. Court adjudication is not the only type of dispute resolution mechanism. Negotiations and mediation also resolve the dispute by finding a mutually acceptable solution. The parties can negotiate themselves or through a private person or machinery provided under the statute. Once the authority conducts the mediation under Section 12A, the mutually acceptable outcome can be enforced like an arbitral award. For some disputes with urgent interim reliefs, adjudication in courts can be a suitable remedy, while for some disputes, resolution through mediation can be more appropriate. Section 12A is recognition of this fact by the legislature. A clear legislative intent emerges from the plain reading of Section 12A that commercial dispute which contemplates an urgent interim relief, dispute resolution by Courts is primary, when there is no such interim relief contemplated, pre-institution mediation for mutual resolution of disputes to be attempted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a fresh suit, the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the plaintiff. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section 12A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared Section 12A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be entitled to the relief. " 15. In the said case before the Supreme Court, the Court has clearly observed that the suits therein did not contemplate urgent interim reliefs. Thus, the question that remains is as to the urgent interim relief that is being sought in the present case and whether exemption ought to be granted from going into pre-litigation mediation. The Court will have to go into the question as to whether such 'urgent interim relief means only such relief which is sought due to immediate past events or can it be urgent interim relief which the Plaintiff seeks in the overall facts and circumstances of a particular case. 16. The importance of an interim injunction in intellectual property matters has been emphasised in the judgment in Laxmikant v. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Anr. [(2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 65]. The relevant observations of the Court in the said judgment are extracted below: 17. We are conscious of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd services in question. Intellectual property cases relate to a wide gamut of businesses such as-medicines, FMCG, food products, financial services, technology, creative works such as books, films, music, etc. Recent trends also point towards large scale misuse on the internet. In some cases, due to misuse of known marks and brands, the consumers are being duped into parting with large sums of money. The rights of the parties are affected almost on a daily basis as there is continuous manufacturing, selling, and offering of services or goods to the customers. The ambit of urgent interim relief that may be required to be granted is extremely varied and depends on the facts of each case. Such reliefs are usually granted by Courts not merely for protection of statutory and common law rights, but also in order to avoid confusion, deception, unfair and fraudulent practices, etc., in the marketplace. 18. It is also the settled legal position that delay by itself does not disentitle a Plaintiff to the grant of urgent interim relief. This position of law was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors. [(2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself dishonest." Hence, even if there was delay on the part of the plaintiff in filing of the present suit as has been claimed by the defendant, the same delay would not be sufficient to deter grant of injunction in favor of plaintiff. 29. The plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. An ad interim injunction is passed restraining the defendants, its officers, agents etc. from manufacturing, exporting, importing or offering for sale, advertising or in any manner dealing with goods not limited to E-Rickshaws bearing the mark DMW or any other mark which are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs BMW marks." 20. Thus, the present case would have to be looked at, in the background of the above legal position, particularly in relation to intellectual property matters. The Plaintiff claims to be a globally renowned company using the mark 'BOLT' along with the logo thereof, for its services being provided globally. The mobile application of the Plaintiff is available for downloading in India and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limited to "Bolt Technology OU" shall not be used, in any manner whatsoever. 3. Surrender to our Client or to us on its behalf for destruction by our Client all advertisements, websites and/or any usage on internet services and on any other electronic media or any other document or product bearing the impugned mark in any form for stationary, uniforms, banners, or any associated products. 4. Withdraw all advertisements/hoardings across all mediums which have any reference to the impugned marks, in any form, whatsoever." 22. The above legal notice dated 24th May, 2022 was served upon the Defendants both by speed post, courier and email. The Defendants did not reply leading to a reminder to the said legal notice being sent by the Plaintiff on 1st June, 2022. Finally, a reply by the Defendants was issued on 5th June, 2022, which was received by the Plaintiff on 9th June, 2022. In the said reply, the Defendant clearly took a stand that it is entitled to use the mark 'BOLT' for various reasons as set out in the said reply. The concluding paragraph of the reply dated 5th June, 2022, is highly indicative of the Defendants' intent, and reads as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, I.A. 13530/2022 is disposed of in the above terms. 28. It is made clear that the observations made in the present application shall not affect the merits of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. CS (COMM.) 582/2022 29. Let the Plaint be registered as a suit. 30. Issue summons in the suit to the Defendants. Summons is accepted by Mr. Naman Maheshwari, ld. Counsel on behalf of the Defendants. 31. Let the written statement(s) to the Plaint be positively filed by the Defendants within 30 days. Along with the written statement(s), the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record. 32. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file replication(s) within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement(s). Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiff, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines. 33. Li....