Delhi High Court - Orders
Bacardi And Company Limited vs Bahety Overseas Private Limited & Ors on 30 March, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:02.04.2022
06:39:00
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (COMM) 464/2021 & I.As.12325/2021, 4855/2022, 4860/2022
BACARDI AND COMPANY LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Naqeeb
Nawab, Mr. Himanshu Deora, Mr.
Raghav Vig and Ms. Tejaswini
Chandrashekhar, Advocates.
(M:8802636154)
versus
BAHETY OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Pranay Sarkar, Advocate for D-1
& 2.
Mr. Aditya Singla, Sr. St. Counsel for
CBIC with Mr. Vaibhav Joshi & Mr.
Tejan Kapur, Adv. for D-3.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 30.03.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A.12325/2021 (for interrogatories)
2. This is an application filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XI Rules 2(1) & 5(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking discovery by interrogatories and production of documents by the Defendants. The various interrogatories for the examination of the Defendants, on which there is no contest, are as under:
"a. Describe with detail every product the Defendants currently offer for sale bearing the impugned marks.
b. Identify the person or entity responsible for the design of the impugned marks and bottle shape, CS (COMM) 464/2021 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:02.04.2022 06:39:00 packaging and labelling of the offending products bearing the impugned marks.
c. Identify and describe each assignment, license, permission to use, and/or change in ownership of the impugned marks, from the date of the first use of the impugned marks till the present date. In answering this Interrogatory, please identify all persons with knowledge of the facts and circumstances identified in your answer. d. Provide all of the parent companies, subsidiaries, divisions, related companies or affiliated companies, partnership, sole proprietorship or any type of entity, including a description of the nature of the relationship between each.
e. Identify and provide uniform resource locators (URLs) to all live or active online sellers using the impugned marks in any fashion."
3. Insofar as the production of documents is concerned, the Defendants are willing to disclose the following documents:
"a. Documents related to the conception and registration of the impugned marks in different classes in which the Defendants have applied for registration/registered the impugned marks. b. Documents related to licensing, assignment, permission to use, and/or change in ownership of the impugned marks, from the date of the first use of the impugned marks till the present date. c. Agreement(s) between the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 for manufacture and import of the products bearing the impugned marks, trade dress and bottle shape.
d. Brochure and/or any other official document of the Defendants providing product information evidencing the various sizes in which the offending products available to the public.CS (COMM) 464/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:02.04.2022 06:39:00
e. Registration of online URL using the impugned marks and agreement with online sellers selling offending products bearing the impugned marks."
4. Heard ld. counsels for the parties in respect of the remaining interrogatories. After hearing, it is ordered as under:
i. Insofar 10(f) is concerned, the same is not pressed by the Plaintiff.
ii. In so far as 10(g) to 10(j) are concerned, the Defendant No.2 is stated to be the main company based in Lebanon, which is the manufacturer and seller of the products. The Defendant No.1 is the importer of products from Defendant No.2. It is not in dispute that the Defendant No.2 has already disclosed the cumulative figures of sales, imports and revenues generated. In view thereof, further disclosure by Defendant No.1 would not be required as the Defendant No.1 was only an importer of the products from the Defendant No.2. Since the main defendant has already provided the details, the said question is disallowed.
5. Mr. Sarkar, ld. Counsel appearing for the Defendant Nos.1 & 2 confirms that insofar as 10(i) & 10(j) are concerned, there is no sale in process at this point, owing to the order dated 12th November, 2021 granting an injunction.
6. In respect of the production of documents, it is ordered as under:
i. Insofar as the documents at 12(f) are concerned, the same is not pressed by the Plaintiff.CS (COMM) 464/2021 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:02.04.2022 06:39:00
ii. Insofar as the documents at 12(g) & 12(i) are concerned, since the sale figures and revenues have already been supplied by the Defendant No.2, no further orders are called for.
7. Insofar as the documents at 12(h) are concerned, Defendant No.3- Chief Commissioner of Customs, shall file an affidavit on record placing the details of the imports made by the Defendant No.1 in respect to the products of Defendant No.2 being sold in India, under the impugned trademark 'FREEZ', 'FREEZ MIX', after ascertaining the same from its databases, to the extent possible. Let the said affidavit be filed within eight weeks.
8. I.A.12325/2021 is disposed of.
I.A.4855/2022 (u/O VII Rule 11 CPC)
9. The present application is dismissed as not pressed. CS (COMM) 464/2021 & I.A.4860/2022
10. List on 3rd August, 2022.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MARCH 30, 2022/dk/Ad CS (COMM) 464/2021 Page 4 of 4