Calcutta High Court
Hitachi Ltd vs Hitachi K.K. Manufacturing on 9 July, 2010
Author: Sanjib Banerjee
Bench: Sanjib Banerjee
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.2077 of 2010 C.S.No.25 of 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE HITACHI LTD.
-Versus-
HITACHI K.K. MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Debol Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sayantan Bose, Adv. Mr. Partha Basu, Adv. ...For the petitioner. Before:
The Hon'ble Justice SANJIB BANERJEE Date: July 09, 2010.
The Court: An ex parte ad interim order was refused when the plaintiff had attempted to move the application on June 28, 2010 and the plaintiff was required to effect service on the proposed added defendants. It appears from the affidavit of service that the proposed added defendants have refused to accept the papers.
The plaintiff says that it is a company of international repute which deals, inter alia, in electrical and electronic products. The plaintiff company's name is its valuable brand and is easily recognized the world over. The plaintiff refers to its business in 2 many countries and the expenses incurred on the publicity of its brand. The plaintiff says that it has significant business in this country.
According to the plaintiff, in this suit interim orders have been passed which are subsisting. The plaintiff says that a separate entity has been spun off by the defendants with a view to try and act in derogation of the subsisting orders. The plaintiff has applied for addition of two parties who, according to the plaintiff, are but extensions of the original defendants.
In view of the case made out and it being apparent that the proposed added defendants are attempting to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and its valuable mark, there will be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the petition adding Om Prakash Prahladka and Hitachi K.K. Manufacturing Company as defendants. The consequential orders in terms of prayers (b), (c), (d) and (e) will follow.
There will be an order of injunction restraining added defendants from using the mark Hitachi in connection with their business or any colourable imitation of the mark Hitachi in any manner whatsoever.
The plaintiff will cause fresh notice to be issued to the added defendants and serve a copy of this order and file an affidavit of service.3
Let the matter appear on July 28, 2010.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) A/s.