Delhi High Court - Orders
New Balance Athletics Inc vs Nbstoresinindia.In & Ors on 6 September, 2022
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 12/2022
NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS INC ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Dushyant K. Mahant, Mr. Urfee
Roomi and Ms. Janaki Arun, Advocates.
versus
NBSTORESININDIA.IN & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Sandeep Mahapatra, Central
Government Standing Counsel for D-15.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Jain and Mr. Praveen Kumar
Jain, Advocates for D-17.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
ORDER
% 06.09.2022 I.A. 1275/2022 (under Order 11 Rules 2 and 12 r/w Section 151 CPC, by Plaintiff)
1. Present application has been preferred by the Plaintiff for directing Defendants No. 11 to 14 and Defendant No. 17 to answer the interrogatories enumerated in para 5 of the application which are as follows:
1) What is/are the name(s) of the registrant(s) of the Defendant Nos. 1-10 as provided while registering the domain names?
2) What is/ are the address(es) of the registrant(s) of the Defendant Nos. 1-10 as provided while registering the domain names?
3) What is/are the email address(es) of the registrant(s) of the Defendant Nos. 1-10 as provided while registering the domain names?
4) What is/are the phone/ mobile numbers of the registrant(s) of the Defendant Nos. 1-10 as provided while registering the domain names?Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 12/2022 Page 1 of 4 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:28.09.2022 21:16:52
2. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff contends that vide order dated 07.01.2022, this Court restrained Defendants No. 1 to 10 and any other entity acting on their behalf from using Plaintiff's NEW BALANCE and NB marks in any manner whatsoever, and also directed to Defendants No. 11 to 14 to suspend and render inoperative, till further orders, the domain name registrations held by Defendants No. 1 to 10. It is submitted that Plaintiff apprehends that the registrants of Defendants No. 1 to 10 may have registered additional infringing/fraudulent domain names incorporating Plaintiff's trademarks. Owing to General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union, names and other contact information of the registrants of Defendants No. 1 to 10 are not available and consequently, the Plaintiff is unable to determine if the registrants of Defendants No. 1 to 10 have registered any additional infringing/fraudulent domain names. It is further submitted that while serving the order dated 07.01.2022 and other documents in compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 CPC, Plaintiff requested Defendants No. 11 to 14 and 17 to provide names and other contact details of registrants of Defendants No. 1 to 10, however, no such information has been received, constraining the Plaintiff to file the present application for delivery of interrogatories.
3. In order to examine the contentions of the Plaintiff and the relief sought in the present application, it would be required to determine if the interrogatories raised are relevant for the purposes of the present suit. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining Defendants No. 1 to 10 and other such rogue websites/domains/entities which are discovered during the proceedings to be engaging in or carrying out activities amounting to infringement of Plaintiff's trademarks as well as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 12/2022 Page 2 of 4 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:28.09.2022 21:16:52 copyright. Vide order dated 07.01.2022, this Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendants No. 1 to 10 restraining them from using the registered NEW BALANCE and NB trademarks of the Plaintiff. Court had also granted liberty to the Plaintiff to approach the Court, should any other infringing website come to its notice for similar interim reliefs. In view of the said relief and the liberty granted, Plaintiff contends that it has made efforts to seek the details of the other registrants of Defendants No. 1 to 10 who may be infringing the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff but no response has been received. In my view, the interrogatories raised are relevant to the present suit.
4. It is a settled position in law that the Court at this stage is not required to examine the impact of the answers to the interrogatories and has to orally consider whether the answers would have some bearings on the issues involved in the suit. Provisions of Order XI CPC are aimed at expediting the trial. The legal position with regard to grant of dynamic injunctions is settled in UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Others v. 1337X.To and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002 and Courts have been granting liberty to the Plaintiffs to implead the rogue websites or alleged to be infringing their trademarks/copyrights. Therefore, the interrogatories raised by the Plaintiff would be relevant in this background and accordingly, Defendant No. 17 is directed to answer the interrogatories by filing an affidavit in terms of Order XI CPC within eight weeks from today.
5. Notice be issued to Defendants No. 11 to 14, through all permissible modes, returnable on 19.10.2022.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 12/2022 Page 3 of 4 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:28.09.2022 21:16:52CS(COMM) 12/2022 & I.A. 7828/2022 (under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, by Defendant No. 17), 8839/2022 (under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, by Plaintiff), 10094/2022 (under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, by Plaintiff)
6. List on 19.10.2022.
JYOTI SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 06, 2022/sn/shivam Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 12/2022 Page 4 of 4 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:28.09.2022 21:16:52