Delhi High Court - Orders
Inder Raj Sahni Proprietor M/S Sahni ... vs Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr on 16 March, 2023
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 355/2021
INDER RAJ SAHNI
PROPRIETOR M/S SAHNI COSMETICS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani, Advocate.
versus
NEHA HERBALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Ms. Swati Meena,
Ms. Yashi Agrawal and Mr. Rohit
Pradhan, Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 16.03.2023
1. Parties are engaged with each other in a suit being - C.S No.1833/2019 titled - Vikas Gupta and Anr. v. M/s. Sahni Cosmetics, which is pending before Central Delhi District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The proceedings in the said suit were stayed under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [hereinafter "the Act"] in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr. v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Ors.,1 enabling Petitioner to apply for rectification of the Register of Trade Marks.
2. Predicated on the above, the instant rectification proceedings came to be filed. In the meantime, the order refusing injunction by the Trial Court was assailed by Respondent No. 1, which proceedings reached the Supreme 1 (2018) 2 SCC 122.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.03.2023 17:55:18Court and were finally decided vide order dated 28th February, 2022 and further clarified on 04th April, 2022 as follows: -
Order dated 28th February, 2022:
"It is reported that the Trial Court has stayed the hearing of the suit. We direct the learned Trial Court to proceed further hearing of the suit irrespective of any further proceedings pending before any other Courts and/or Authorities. With this, the Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
Order dated 04th April, 2022:
"In the order dated 28.02.2022, the following be added:
"As the present proceedings arises out of order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment and order passed by the High court is not interfered with.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we directed the learned Trial Court to decide and dispose of suit expeditiously and preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, subject to cooperation of all concerned.
It goes without saying that the learned Trial Court shall decide and dispose of the suit in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence lead and without being influenced by any of the observations made while deciding the impugned interim injunction application which shall always be treated and considered prima facie."
With this, the present miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. The registry is directed to issue fresh order accordingly."
[Underscoring supplied]
3. In light of the above directions, the Trial Court continued hearing the suit and trial was conducted and now the proceedings have reached the stage of final disposal.
4. The instant petition, seeking cancellation of Respondent No. 1's (Proprietor of Respondent No. 1 is the Plaintiff in the suit) mark, is premised, inter-alia, on the plea of prior use. Since parties have already led evidence on the same issue, Mr. Sachin Gupta, counsel for Respondent No. 1, suggests that proceedings pending before the Trial Court could be clubbed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.03.2023 17:55:18 with instant proceedings. On the above aspect, Mr. M.K. Miglani, counsel for Petitioner, states that he will take instructions.
5. Re-notify on 22nd March, 2023.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MARCH 16, 2023 d.negi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.03.2023 17:55:18