Delhi High Court - Orders
Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd vs Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd on 22 January, 2019
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 360/2016 & IAs No.4680/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2
CPC), 7480/2016 (of defendant u/S 10 r/w S-151 CPC) & Crl.M.A.
No.20428/2017 (of defendant u/S 340 r/w S.195(1)(b) CrPC)
SHREE GANESH ROLLING MILLS (INDIA) LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan and Ms.
Prakriti Sharma, Advs.
Versus
JINDAL ROLLING MILL LTD. ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Tanmaya Mehta and Mr. Arjun
Narayan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 22.01.2019
1. This suit was being adjourned for the last several dates awaiting the outcome of the application qua territorial jurisdiction in the previously instituted suit between the parties at Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
2. The counsel for the plaintiff states that the application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) of the plaintiff herein who is the defendant in Hyderabad suit has been recently dismissed but the order is not available.
3. The counsel for the plaintiff has further informed (i) that the plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from passing off same goods as that of the plaintiff by use of the mark „JINDAL‟; (ii) that the plaintiff was established by Mr. O.P. Jindal, as a CS(COMM) 360/2016 Page 1 of 2 partnership firm and commenced using the trade mark „JINDAL‟ on 1 st January, 1974 and was also first granted registration in 1985; (iii) that the defendant has been established by a member of the larger family of Mr. O.P. Jindal and was initially using the mark „Y.R. JINDAL‟, to distinguish its goods from that of the plaintiff under the mark „JINDAL‟; (iv) that the defendant has however now abandoned the said mark and commenced using the mark identical to that of the plaintiff i.e. „JINDAL‟; (v) that the defendant, over the years has also obtained registration of the mark „JINDAL‟; (vi) that the plaintiff has applied to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for rectification of the mark of the defendant; (vii) that the defendant instituted the suit against the plaintiff at Hyderabad Courts to restrain the plaintiff from using the mark „JINDAL‟ and from passing off its goods as that of the defendant herein as well as for infringement; (viii) that the plaintiff has applied under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in Hyderabad Courts and which application is pending; (ix) that though the proceedings in the present suit may be stayed on account of previously instituted suit at Hyderabad but the plaintiff is entitled to hearing of its application under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the CPC.
4. The counsels are not found to be ready to argue.
5. List for hearing of the application for interim relief on 7th May, 2019.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
JANUARY 22, 2019 „bs‟..
CS(COMM) 360/2016 Page 2 of 2