Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private ... vs Chitali Botting Limited on 9 March, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private ... vs Chitali Botting Limited on 9 March, 2020

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                 P2-IA1-20-COMIPL115-20.DOC




 Shephali


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                     IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2020
                                    IN
                   COMM IP SUIT (L) NO. 115 OF 2020


 Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Pvt Ltd                                ...Plaintif
       Versus
 Chitali Bottling Ltd                                            ...Defendant


Dr Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr HW Kane,
     Mr Nikhil Sharma & Mr Ajaraj Bagwe, i/b WS Kane & Co, for
     the Plaintiff
Dr Abhinav Chandrachud, i/b Pavan Patil, for the Defendantf


                               CORAM:           G.S. PATEL, J.

                               DATED:           9th March 2020
 PC:-

1. The matter is mentioned today since the regular bench is unavailable. The Plaintif is the holder of various trade marks for country liquor, including "Tango Punch". The Defendant was licensed to bottle products inter alia under this mark. It seems that the Defendant fled a Civil Suit No. 95 of 2020 in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune contending that there was an oral license or an oral assignment. In that Suit, the Defendant initially Page 1 of 3 9th March 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 01:51:12 ::: P2-IA1-20-COMIPL115-20.DOC obtained a temporary protective order. That order has since been vacated. The Defendant has fled an AO against that order vacating the previous ad-interim protection.

2. In the meantime the Superintendent of Excise has served a notice on the Defendant in relation to the Defendant's bottling activities in regard to this mark. This, the Defendants have understood as being efectively a direction by the Excise Department not to vend or distribute any products under the Plaintif's marks.

3. Dr Chandrachud for the Defendants states that the AO against the Pune Court order has been circulated for 11th March 2020. Obviously, so long as there is a direction of the Superintendent, and unless there is a protective order obtained by the Defendant in that AO, the Defendant cannot in law distribute or vend any products using the Plaintif's trademark "Tango Punch". Dr Chandrachud's instructions are only to make a statement that there presently exists such a directive or communication from the Excise Department with the consequences noted above. The statement is noted.

4. All contentions are, however, kept open in the IA. This order is without prejudice to the rival rights and contentions in the AO.

5. In view of the urgency, and only for that reason, I will have to take the liberty of directing that this matter be listed on the supplementary board of the regular bench on 12th March 2020.

Page 2 of 3

9th March 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 01:51:12 ::: P2-IA1-20-COMIPL115-20.DOC Parties are put to notice that this listing does not assure a hearing on that day as this is a matter exclusively within the purview of the regular bench.

(G. S. PATEL, J) Page 3 of 3 9th March 2020 ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2020 01:51:12 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court