Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd. & Anr vs Hiveloop Technology Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 22 November, 2019

Author: Debangsu Basak

Bench: Debangsu Basak

                                ORDER SHEET
                              GA No.2531 of 2019
                                      With
                              CS No.248 of 2019
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                ORIGINAL SIDE


                  BISWANATH HOSIERY MILLS LTD. & ANR.
                               Versus
                 HIVELOOP TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. & ORS.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
  Date: 22nd November, 2019.


                                                                      Appearance:
                                                 Mr. Ratnanko Banerjee Sr. Adv.
                                                       Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
                                                      Ms. Adreeka Pandey, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Adv.
                                                           . . .for the petitioner.

                                                     Mr. S.N. Mookerjee Sr. Adv.
                                                           Mr. Aditya Gupta, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Soumabho Ghose, Adv.
                                                           Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Adv.
                                                     . . .for the respondent no.1.

The Court: Petitioner claims to be the registered trade mark holder of the trade marks appearing at Annexures B, D and E. Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the defendant no.1 carries on business as an intermediary in the internet. The defendant no.1 is displaying the goods bearing deceptively similar marks as that of the registered trade mark of the petitioner on the portal maintained by the defendant no.1. The defendant nos.2 to 6 are selling goods bearing trade marks 2 deceptively similar to that of the registered trade mark of the petitioner on the portal of the defendant no.1. He seeks interim protection with regard thereto.

The defendant no.1 is represented.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the defendant no.1 submits that, subsequent to the receipt of the cease and desist notice, the defendant no.1 requested the petitioner to provide the URL numbers of the offending parties. The petitioner did not respond thereto.

Since, there exists registered trade marks in favour of the petitioner as appearing in Annexures B, D and E and since, the offending marks at Annexures G, H and N are deceptively similar to those of Annexures B, D and E, it would be appropriate to restrain the defendant no.1 from carrying any goods of the defendant nos.2 to 6 on the portal maintained by the defendant no.1, bearing the marks appearing at Annexures G, H and N. The defendant nos.2 to 6 are restrained from selling any product with the mark appearing at Annexures G, H and N. It would be appropriate to permit the parties to file affidavits. Let affidavit in opposition be filed within two weeks from date, reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. List the application under the heading "Adjourned Motion" in the monthly list of January, 2020. The petitioner will serve a copy of this order on the defendant no.2 to 6 and file an affidavit of service to such effect on the next date.

(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) sp/