Sunil Mittal & Anr vs Anup Gupta & Anr

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J

The plaintiffs have sued the two defendants namely (i) Anup Gupta; and, (ii) M/s. DA’DARZEE inter alia for permanent injunction to restrain

the defendants from infringing the trade mark THE DARZI of the plaintiff and from passing off their tailoring services and tailored goods as that of

the plaintiffs by using the word DA’DARZEE.

As per the case of the plaintiffs, the mark of the defendants is DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE). No injunction restraining the

defendants from using the said mark has been claimed.

I have enquired from the counsel for the plaintiffs, whether the plaintiffs have no objection to the defendants’ using the mark DZINES

AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE), registration whereof has also been applied for by the defendants.

The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs have no objection.

Now on second thought, it is stated that the plaintiffs have objection.

However no relief to that effect has been claimed.

The counsel for the plaintiffs, upon the same being pointed out, states that the plaintiffs will amend the plaint.

I have observed in an order in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs, in the business of tailoring if unable to stitch their own

‘suit’ with precision, cannot be expected to properly stitch ‘suits’ of others. The said position is found to continue.

List on 18th December, 2019.