Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Veerji Restaurant Private Limited vs Mohini Chaddha Trading As Veerj Ji Malai ... on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 457/2024
M/S VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Nishant Mahtta and Ms. Twinkle
Rai, Advocates.
versus
MOHINI CHADDHA TRADING AS VEERJ JI MALAI CHAAP
WALE & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 28.05.2024 I.A. 30691/2024 (seeking exemption from filing originals, clear/dim copies, handwritten and illegible copies along with supporting affidavit)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Plaintiff shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 30692/2024 (seeking leave to file additional documents)
4. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
5. If Plaintiff wishes to file additional documents at a later stage, they shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the said Act.
6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 1 of 9This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:40 I.A. 30690/2024 (exemption from pre-mediation and settlement along with supporting affidavit)
7. As the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi,1 exemption from attempting pre-institution mediation is granted.
8. Disposed of.
CS(COMM) 457/2024
9. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
10. Upon filing of process fee, issue summons to the Defendants by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement shall be filed by the Defendant within 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the Defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record.
11. Liberty is given to the Plaintiff to file a replication within 15 days of the receipt of the written statement. Along with the replication, if any, filed by the Plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the Defendants, be filed by the Plaintiff, without which the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
12. List before the Joint Registrar for marking of exhibits on 27th August, 2024. It is made clear that any party unjustifiably denying documents would be liable to be burdened with costs.
13. List before Court for framing of issues thereafter.
12023 SCC OnLine SC 1382.
CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 2 of 9This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:40 I.A. 30689/2024 (for grant of ad-interim injunction against the Defendants)
14. The Plaintiff, Veerji Restaurant Private Limited, is a company engaged in the food and restaurant business, providing goods and services under the trademark "VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE". Subsequent to the Plaintiff's incorporation in the year 2020, they were assigned various trademarks, along with goodwill, pertaining to the said trademark by the Plaintiff's predecessor in title, who adopted the same in the year 2016.
15. Plaintiff has several registrations pertaining to the mark "VEERJI" and formative marks thereof in various classes under the Trade Marks Act, 19992, including for the logo/ device " ". Details of the Plaintiff's trademark applications, granted and pending, have been delineated in Paragraph No. 14 of the plaint. Furthermore, Plaintiff has secured a copyright registration under No. A-135581/2020 for the artistic work vested in the label " ".
Plaintiff also operates a website titled "www.veerjimalaichaapwale.com".
16. The Plaintiff entered into an oral franchise agreement with Defendants No. 1 to 4, allowing them to use the Plaintiff's trademarks for the purpose of operating restaurants at the respective addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties. However, since the said Defendants did not pay the franchise fee/ royalty, the Plaintiff was constrained to terminate the said agreements by 2 "TM Act"
CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 3 of 9This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:40 issuing termination notices to them. However, the said Defendants did not discontinue their use of the Plaintiff's trademark. These termination notices were followed by notices issued through the Plaintiff's counsel, which also did not have any effect. In such circumstances, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are continuing to unauthorisedly use the Plaintiff's registered trademarks for identical services, amounting to infringement.
17. The Court has considered the aforenoted facts and contentions. The documents placed on record prima facie establish the Plaintiff's rights over the mark "VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE", which is used as their trade name and also forms the textual matter of the registered device mark " ". Plaintiff has also demonstrated, through their sales and promotion figures, that they have acquired considerable goodwill in respect of the said marks. The Defendants No. 1 to 4 are indeed engaged in identical services of providing food and restaurant services, and are currently operating their businesses under the mark "VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE", which is identical to the Plaintiff's trademark. The infringing activities are demonstrated by the following screenshots, which depict the manner of use of the Plaintiff's registered mark by the Defendants as well as their active presence on third-party food delivery platforms, including those of Defendants No. 5 (Zomato) and 6 (SWIGGY):
Defendant Screenshots depicting Infringement CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 4 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:40 Defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2 CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 5 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:40 Defendant No. 3 CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 6 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:41 Defendant No. 4 CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 7 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:41
18. It is therefore clear that the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are offering identical services under an identical mark, without any authorisation from the Plaintiff, indicating a dishonest and deliberate attempt to ride upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff. This creates a strong likelihood for confusion and deception of unwary customers, who are likely to be misled into believing that the services of the said Defendants are associated with the Plaintiff. The cause for concern is amplified by the fact that the parties are in the food and restaurant business, wherein quality and hygiene are of utmost importance. Thus, the indiscriminate use of the Plaintiff's trademark by Defendants No. 1 to 4 creates high potential for harm to be caused to the Plaintiff's reputation.
19. In view of the above, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in their favour and in case no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted, Plaintiff will suffer an irreparable loss; balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 8 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:41 No. 1 to 4.
20. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Defendants No. 1 to 4 are restrained from using the trademark "VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE"
or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks "VEERJI"/ " " and other formative marks, amounting to infringement and/or passing off. Further, Defendants No. 1 to 4 are restrained from using any device/ label amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's copyright in the label " ". It is clarified that there is no restriction on the Defendants to use the term "MALAI CHAAP WALE".
21. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be done within a period of ten days from today.
22. Issue notice, upon payment of process fee, by all permissible modes, returnable on the next date of hearing. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks from date of service. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
23. List on 23rd October, 2024.
SANJEEV NARULA, J MAY 28, 2024 nk CS(COMM) 457/2024 Page 9 of 9 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 31/05/2024 at 23:42:41