Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Puma Se vs Indiamart Intermesh Ltd on 14 November, 2022

Author: Prathiba M. Singh

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                          $~17
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +     CS(COMM) 607/2021 and I.A. 15564/2021, 10242/2022, I.A.
                                13048/2022
                                PUMA SE                                     ..... Plaintiff
                                             Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Advocate.
                                                      (M:9810089304)
                                             versus

                                INDIAMART INTERMESH LTD.                      ..... Defendant
                                             Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Advocate
                                                        with Ms. Rhea Dube and Ms. Zeya
                                                        Junaid, Advocates. (M:9893955119)
                                CORAM:
                                JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                                             ORDER

% 14.11.2022

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - PUMA SE, seeking permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, dilution, passing off, damages, etc. in respect of the trademark 'PUMA' and the logo thereof.

3. The issue raised by the Defendant - Indiamart, in the present matter, is as to whether the information being sought by the Plaintiff would be liable to be disclosed by the Defendant. According to ld. Senior Counsel for the Defendant, if the products are genuine, the Plaintiff would not be entitled to stop sale on e-commerce platforms owing to the principle of exhaustion.

4. However, on the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that in order to determine as to whether the goods are genuine or not, the details of the sellers would be required.

5. The matter requires consideration. Let the Defendant file a rejoinder to the Reply in I.A. 13048/2022 seeking recall of order dated 7th July, 2022.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:16.11.2022 16:09:20

6. List for hearing on 2nd February, 2023.

7. This matter shall not be treated as part-heard.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

NOVEMBER 14, 2022 MR/AD Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:16.11.2022 16:09:20