Delhi High Court - Orders
Titan Company Limited vs Clues Network Private Limited & Ors on 1 December, 2022
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C.Hari Shankar
$~4(Original)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 609/2021 & I.A. 15595/2021, I.A. 849/2022, I.A.
3453/2022, I.A. 8730/2022, I.A. 8732/2022
TITAN COMPANY LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr.
Achuthan Sreekumar and Mr. Rohil Bansal,
Advs.
versus
CLUES NETWORK
PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Avinash Sharma and Mr.
R. Abhishek, Advs. for Defendant 1
Ms. Gunjan Mittal, Adv. for Defendants 2,5
and 7
Mr. Arvind Jain, Mr. Amrish Anand, Mr.
Mayank Gupta, Ms. Sristi Jain and Mr.
Ayush Bisht, Advs.for Defendants 3 and 4
Mr. Aman Mudgal and Mr. Prateek Bhalla,
Advs. for Defendant 6
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 01.12.2022 I.A. 849/2022
1. This application, by Defendant 1 under Order XI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeks responses from the plaintiff on the following three interrogatories:
"1. Who are the authorized sellers of the Plaintiff?
2. Please provide a complete list of the authorized sellers of the Plaintiff?
3. Has there been any instance when the Defendant No. 1 Signature Not Verified failed to comply with any take down notice sent by the Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 609/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:02.12.2022 11:25:05 Plaintiff?"
2. Mr. Avinash Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant gives up his prayer for responses on Interrogatories 1 and 2 and restricts his prayer to Interrogatory 3.
3. On Interrogatory 3, Mr. Pravin Anand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff confirms the fact that, as and when the plaintiff required Defendant 1 to take down any offending products from its platform, the needful was done. Interrogatory 3 stands answered in the aforesaid terms.
4. As such, this application stands disposed of.
I.A. 15595/20215. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for Defendant 1 submits, on instructions, that his client would abide by the undertaking recorded in para 11 of the order dated 29th November 2021 passed by this Court in the present application while granting ex-parte ad interim injunction.
5. In order to avoid confusion, para 11 of the order dated 29th November 2021 is reproduced thus:
"11. Mr. Sai Deepak, learned Counsel for Defendant 1 submits that he is only an intermediary, as the owner of the platform on which the allegedly infringing products are sold and has no personal involvement in the alleged infringement. He undertakes to ensure that the infringing products would not be sold on his platform, whether at the instance of Defendants 2 to 7 or any other seller. Mr. Pravin Anand, however, disputes the defendant's assertion of innocence and submits that responsibility would equally attach to Defendant 1. The undertaking of Mr. Sai Deepak is taken on record subject to the rights of Defendant 1 under Section 30 of the Trademarks Act, 1999."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 609/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:02.12.2022 11:25:05
6. As such, the undertaking of Defendant 1 to ensure that the infringing products would not be sold on the platform of Defendant 1 whether at the instance of Defendants 2 to 7 or any other seller, during the pendency of the present suit, is recorded.
7. Defendant 1 would stand bound by the said undertaking.
8. The ad interim order dated 29th November 2021 is, therefore, made absolute pending disposal of the suit.
9. This application stands disposed of accordingly.
I.A. 3453/2022, I.A. 8730/2022 and I.A. 8732/2022
10. Re-notify for hearing and disposal on 17th February 2023.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J DECEMBER 1, 2022 rb Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI CS(COMM) 609/2021 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:02.12.2022 11:25:05