Delhi High Court - Orders
Allied Blenders @ Distillers Private ... vs Hermes Distillery Private Limited on 13 May, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:DEVANSHU JOSHI
Signing Date:17.05.2022
13:01:38
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 274/2021 & I.A. 7301/2021
ALLIED BLENDERS @ DISTILLERS PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan
Chopra & Mr. Vibhav Mithal,
Advocates. (M:8447458389)
versus
HERMES DISTILLERY PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. N.K.
Bhardwaj, Mr. Bikash Ghorai & Mr.
Rahul Maratha, Advocates.
(M:9818318973)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 13.05.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present matter was heard on 6th April, 2022. On the said date, the Defendant was led by ld. Senior Counsel. After some hearing, the following order was passed:
"1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The matter has been heard for sometime. The dispute in this case relates to the colour combination of Plaintiff's label "Officer's Choice"
and Defendant's label "Peace Maker" both used for whisky.
3. After some hearing, ld. counsels for the parties wish to seek instructions in the matter.
4. List on 18th April, 2022 for further hearing."
CS(COMM) 274/2021 Page 1 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.05.2022 13:01:383. On 18th April, 2022, a proposed pantone shade card was placed before the Court, which was not in adherence to what was contemplated in the hearing on 6th April, 2022. Accordingly, the following order dated 18th April, 2022 was passed:
"1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the colour combination of Plaintiff's label "Officer's Choice" and Defendant's label "Peace Maker" both used for whisky. Vide the previous order dated 6th April, 2022, after some hearing, ld. Counsels for the parties were directed to seek instructions in the matter.
3. Today, Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Defendant, has produced a pantone shade card bearing no. 17880, as the shade to which the Defendant wishes to change its current label.
4. The Court has perused the same and it clearly appears that there is not much of a difference in the said shade and the impugned label which the Defendant is currently using.
5. Accordingly, on the next date of hearing, the Defendant shall produce at least four different artworks and not merely a pantone shade card, as has been done today, so that matter can be resolved. The Defendant may also consider reversing the color combination of `White over Red' to `Red over White'. This shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties.
6. Let the said artwork be produced on the next date.
7. List on 13th May, 2022."
4. Today, instead of producing an artwork after exchanging it with the Plaintiff, a new counsel, Mr. J. Sai Deepak, appears in the matter and submits that he has instructions to contest the matter.
CS(COMM) 274/2021 Page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.05.2022 13:01:385. It is noticed that, in a large number of IPR matters, once the matter is heard, the Counsel seeks time to take instructions in the matter and, thereafter, instead of complying with the Court's order for submitting alternate artworks or alternate names or logos, the Counsel is changed and the party takes the position that it intends to contest the matter. This results in colossal waste of judicial time, particularly considering the heavy board of the Court. In such cases, it is made clear that heavy costs would be liable to be imposed.
6. Mr. Sai Deepak, ld. Counsel has made his submissions in part and has relied upon certain case law. The arguments are inconclusive.
7. List for further hearing on 27th May, 2022. This is a part-heard matter.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MAY 13, 2022 dj/ad CS(COMM) 274/2021 Page 3 of 3