Delhi High Court - Orders
Puma Se vs Indiamart Intermesh Ltd on 29 November, 2021
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 607/2021
PUMA SE ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr.Rajan Narula and Ms.Deeksha
Singh, Advocates.
versus
INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD ..... Defendant
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Bahl, Mr.Siddhart
Mahajan, and Mr.Zinnea Mwehta and
Mr.Mizan Siddiqui, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 29.11.2021 IA No.15567/2021
1. The learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks one week more time to file requisite Court Fees.
2. In view of submissions so made, let requisite Court Fees be placed on record by plaintiff within a week from today.
3. The application stands disposed of.
IAs No.15565, 15566, 15568 of 2021
4. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
5. The applications stand disposed of.
CS(COMM) 607/2021 & IA No.15564/2021
6. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, dilution, passing off, damages, etc. in respect of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:30.11.2021 15:24 trademark PUMA and Form strip logo alleging there are well known and world renowned trade mark and common law right in the brands and trade dress, get up, layout and placement of distinctive features of its shoes and readymade garments. The suit has also been instituted to seek strict adherence to observing the due diligence requirement, by the Defendant, as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act; to stop aiding, inducing and abetting infringement of Plaintiffs brands and various IP elements by actively offering PUMA as a brand option by the Defendant through its portal from its drop-down list to anyone desirous of selling footwear, face masks, socks, caps, watches, accessories, and merchandise. The Defendant through its website/portal www.indiamart.com is encouraging traders to trade/stock/supply/market/ sell/list clothing, footwear, face masks, socks, caps, watches, accessories, and merchandises etc. that are poor in quality and counterfeit using the brand name PUMA resulting in infringement of the Plaintiffs registered trademark/logo PUMA and passing off.
7. The learned counsel for defendant appearing on advance notice submits there is no averment of any infringing of the trademark by the defendant nor any infringer has been made a party in this suit. Further, it is alleged the defendant is duly complying with the guidelines framed by the Central Government per Section 79 (2) (c) of the IT Act, 2000. The learned counsel for the defendant yet seeks time to obtain instructions to see as to if the apprehensions raised by the plaintiff can also be safeguarded with. It would also be desirable, if the defendant file a short affidavit enumerating the working of its portal before next date of hearing with an Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:30.11.2021 15:24 advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the plaintiff through email.
8. List again on 20.12.2021.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 29, 2021 M Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIJAYA LAKSHMI DOBHAL Signing Date:30.11.2021 15:24