AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Debangsu Basak, J
The Court: In a suit for infringement of trademark and copyright the plaintiff seeks interim protection.
There subsists an interim order dated November 5, 2019 granted in favour of the plaintiff.
The application is now being heard after completion of affidavits.
In the affidavit in opposition, the defendants contend that, they applied for registration of their trademarks.
Learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that, the pendency of this suit and the order that may be granted in the suit should not prejudice
the rights of the defendants in the application for grant of registration of the trademarks pending before the appropriate authority.
The second objection of the defendants in the affidavit in opposition is that, there are other users of the word “Kit†in the market. With regard to
this contention, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, amongst the users spoken off by the defendants in their affidavit in opposition,
excepting two, the validity of the registration of such users leave expired. In respect of the remaining two, the plaintiff obtained order of injunction.
The third objection raised in the affidavit in opposition is that the plaintiff is undergoing a proceeding under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
To this, learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that such proceedings were over much prior to the suit being filed.
The applications for registration of the trademarks of the defendants are receiving consideration by the appropriate forum. The plaintiff raised
objection thereto. It appears from the records made available to Court that, three of the applications made by the defendants are deemed to be
abandoned by the defendants. Be that as it may, this Court need not enter into the issues raised in the proceedings pending before the appropriate
forum. It is open to the parties to raise their respective points before such appropriate forum.
The pendency of those applications for registration per se do not defeat the right of the plaintiff to receive interim protection in the instant suit.
So far as other users are concerned, the materials made available to Court show that the validity period of the trademark of most of the users stands
expired. Moreover the plaintiff is enjoying orders of injunction as against the remaining two. The Court is concerned with the present defendants.
The third objection of the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 is of no consequence as such proceeding was over prior to
the filing of the suit.
In such circumstances, there being no further or new material than obtaining on November 5, 2019 when the ad-interim order was passed, tilting the
balance in favour of the defendants, the interim order granted on November 5, 2019 is directed to continue till disposal of the suit.
In the facts of the present case, the plaintiff is also entitled to an order of injunction in terms of prayer (d) of the petition. There will be an order in
terms of prayer (d) of the petition also.
GA No.2392 of 2019 is disposed of without any order as to costs.