Advance Magazine Publishers Inc vs M M Kariappa on 2 November, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc vs M M Kariappa on 2 November, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

1
IN THE HEGH CGURT <3? KARzm'AKA, aawmwas
saves "rt-as mg 295' DAY es: NOVEMBER 2me%T

BEFORE

THE e-:m~;'3LE am Jzssnce RAVI ?~r¥ALIW':§Tf5j":V/L   x 

asrwssrq   

Am/ANCE MAaGAﬂNE PLIB't.;sHE'§3INC   
350, Mmrsmz AVENUE, Mew vom-':._    

NEW YORK 19431?    

USA REP avrrs       
:::m:sTrrL.m'-so ATmR.!\,itY m-c xmzzaezarai

    j; W  " }',g géﬁéamwr

(av sax. :.;aavA.:«:xJL:g#%%sEu:ea czourszsa mg.
55:; M. Mc%HAN[9A0.,T¥AavomTE)
Am :%  A   ' "
3.  'M' 521 i(ARI-A1;-'?A
%% %&m¢3uE msmavrs or MAhéAGE?4ENT
«_  SALE. STADIUM
 % k mnsaamama
 BANGALQRE 25

2  vc3:;ugé"I%~5T:ru*rs as swsascsamem
2'-£EA§?. mom BALL STADIUM

=  x  MAGRRYH mm
"  fSA¥dGﬁJ._0§E 25

 REEPQNDENW

 $ (av 52:. m>eRaaA,AwocATa)

MA



 ,  ap;,_&sé§§.   Vv

2
REA FILED W8 96 or-' 639:: AGﬁsINS"¥' THE JUDGMENT
AND oecaez GT. 1.o.12.2m4 PASSED IN  ' -. QS
140.2934/1999

aw me FILE 09 mg vim: A{3{)L.CI'E'_r'= :j;m;_A Jame, BA!\l{§ﬁsLORE crrv (car: £40.15), ﬁISMIS_SIf¢§§V:--TE§E___ _ SUIT $3 9ERMﬁNENT IYQJUNCTION ETC. Ttﬁs Apnea! coming on Courtdeﬁvered the h!3o &§£'.__A.'~.V_ ~ = - '~ Aggriavad by thes 10%:

{member 2604. paW5% xiL**:iL§5*j?'=*«;29?€"1999 "Y the V3' Adﬁi. my csvéi 'Jk::a§§{e,j.Mt3'a§§"ga§¢ra city, dismissing the suit for iniuncfiﬁgi v.e§¢..._J'ﬁ§i'e. :_"..;:3ainciff has ﬁred tha prwant

--V.2;v..v4Farz'i§s.._wou!d be refernw ta as past thair rank mam théA%'%*riu%f§ Com, plaintiff claims $30 carry on an inmmatinnal V' i~ILf'b§,sV$i£$--a!3ssV'ef pubiication End distributian of magazines. The':

'biaintiff is thsa pwyrmor of the warm farrmrs _m"l"é"adamar£«: "' V%UE", which £5 in reggae: of a fashiaart mgazine. The "fradamark "'VGGUE" has been used in Va '\,/ 3 Impact cf tbs fashkmn magazine far mare than 1(3) years sirtca time: year 1892, That the plaintiff' has whol|yV.é§§i'e:gd subsidiaries in Va:-iaus cauntrim imzluding Germany, Frame Austt-33$: etc. The pkint§fE?§ $a;Vb§A.i§iﬁrieéé > in thssa countries SEO pasbiish jaT s; :' 'vogue Living', wave Wc§ar§§ion*'**g§ic; ByA'9f'j';€fi'e extensive circazlatian and V.;£_ix¢;efie£i't-.§'ué:iit§':§ the articm pubfisheﬁ, the "' " has acquired a fem-sidabie ._ré7':agazine being a sophisticated 'f:a:':s:'%'~§:1'ek:s:-:.,.....§ras.re§ and art, is unaqu2fr§'i@" snﬁgézvivﬁe in tha worid. The Trﬁdamvﬁrk' 'iﬁ'vé«:§:t%.§'§2atw§onaEiy acciaimaad and has bean inga, of countriau inciuding India. 23%;; March 1998, the plaintiff came to L_:§c:*2;:J;Eiaé'£i}£*;t;:€§ie &§fendant was running it "¥'rair:ing institute u§§:i,§r'th¢}.iév a91.g2*§}:e and styha ef" vamsa Institute as' Fashian "V.Tachna5:;§gr;". Yhat the defendant was aisc using the name A " "_ E1:E§A7C§A_13E ' ' the great gamer optima ' em Hence, a notice V. séagss issuw to the defendanw to news and desist frem using the Tradamark VGGUE. 'rm éafamdanw in their repiy dmtkinw :0 69 $0. Theraafter, there were variaus cammzmigaﬁzans between 335 stair-stiff and E213 defendants' Mp 4 On are defendants rafuaa! :15: caasa and desist fram using ﬁwa Trademark V0335, the plaintiff filed the p:*ese::ft"; s;si£: seeking far a permanent'. injunctian against the fmm using V(2&UE as part of theér name _ an zfirsct the defendanw to ret'zdaar:;.-.5?s§§::é'.f::,i:2$,s"'«_ars:: made by the defendants by using fi2§ '¥:rad¥n;§..".atjf'i£' inckzdes the word "VGGUE", a 6a§':'ae: for"s_i_i<j?2 duas after submissian of §th.er Aﬁﬁﬁséquential reliefs.

S. The and denied the s:s%*é:vv:;la:_§rs*é. §'t.3-.ta§;sV;£sz§bﬁe.n_daﬁ that am suit is vexatious, maficiou$'ar'$d% ﬁ'ie':d'Vi»»'a§f'Ai'f:i':Ij':"'aa:tf':"i.$!t::erin:* motive to harass the defergzisnts. dram net farm a part an' that: V. er a Hﬁ;éding style and thewfore cannct be Tradesmrk in msmﬁt cf the pEa§r:tiff's ﬂ bu#ia1.e%;__g'I§.,iéf&§ pmded that the defendana' irestitastion is ""'--..VV'L'ie:§'x¢L!iy Eiféerant from axe business cf the giairzttiff. Yhat the A is a camman Engiish ward and the ptaintiff méznat ciaim a Trademark right over it and hence the ' provisiwms ef the Tram and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 an ant ewached tn the case on handg :~9Z«--

j 5

5. The Tr£a£ Court on framing ? iwuas dismiwsad tbs suit :3? the piaintiﬁ. Renae, the prﬁnt apaueai.

7. Sri.Uday Haiia, ths tamed smearing far the p%aintiff's caunseg__;enté:éé§'_';tiié::§* _'the.:1 "' 2 impugned juﬁgmaartt and eiecree is iiaﬁir.

he set aside. He contends'TV_ th;§t fthai '%Trfia:§. ' §":A;::v;:rtV has cammimd an error iz;__ dismiis;sii§§»._ ':11; §u%t. '§An§1 ? hencer, interference is calhd VH3 §*9n}:u;n'%§'£[v'§'ﬁat the Trial Court has erroneously mgapbgd "E%=.:£§n{ iﬁéfandants with rward to the. of4'ji_mf'e:- we infringarrxent of the"cc:1&nds that the plaintiff being in ﬁ's1%a bu§'in:¢s§s" Fashiian since 139 years 3236 hawfinigg Tfadeémgrtc "VGQJE", the defsndanta am iii:é§a§Iy.,§:s§n§TV"'=:ha saw: for their inszatm. Hem, the 'ma:

in dismissing the suit.

8;.V"'vf*§9£§éitiwtand£nq me contentions urgw in em suit, " ;;ilp:'[1Sa:b:?asiw that the: piairztii? bag a very gcrcsd cam on ' and due ﬁe tha improger avi-rsienca {ad in mfara the ' > " hféiisk Cm.»-t, the suit has ma dismissad. He mute:-gds that ﬁve naczmsary matarw For the just and ﬁns! adjudication of tha saﬁt were an: placed far atxs-ssédaratinn by the piainﬁﬁ. W E 6 Thsrefare, ha pmds that an opgortunity be given to the pkairztiff $3 phase sixth metering? before the Tris} ﬁzz just and ﬁnai adjudiaatien 9f the suft. He _ mat in View :3? the inatticn in mt iaading §videnc§ and tha piecing of appropriate ﬁjater§§f'~ Court, the: plaintiff couid not.be..__.denEe;f"'E$ in a Court of law.

9. In pursuancé "e§i.*k:3:£2¢f,s.:_>'§'.r§"V«§;%§iicatien has been {Had under Order 41 céf production of addﬁiarnat ﬁbﬁsiééiration at' this Court, whicﬁ : 'v$o:':s1$f$ ':$f..: :a "about 20 dacurraents. ﬁe ccnsxaque:§'t¥5(::oriE;e_.iisﬁ¥.s" the said éacuments caught to '_ ha'q_u¥a§j«:.'1::§*o:'1: Vpre§'d"asﬁ::a:;3"'§>,-'izifora tha Triai Caurt. The Sam-5 was we k '«..ii*§a___t:hsrefore pieaés ma: mm adtﬁtionai L".da§é:.:s.r::ﬁ'£z' &:ar§Viﬁuired for am just anti ﬁna¥ adjudisaaticn V --V of &'i&. Csanswuantty, appropriate evidence wrszmf K V' V havg' ied in, with refaranae tn ti-me documents.

1e. The seamed counse: appaaring far tbs " méefendanm, defends ﬁxe impugned judgsmrzt and éecrw. we submits that the impugneé judgment £5 we?! reasmzed and there is :13 arm" mmmitmd by the Com': ﬁabw, whiah z' F '?

calis for any inwrfamnca, He further submits that the dntzumeng scught to he pmducad undaar Order of CPC, pertain so such materiaf that the consider as a subsequent extant. There¥;3.*a§g~..f:i*£a:e§ documens womb not be fasf-~t:'lft%a e~,d}:,;'di<$3ti§2§fA»:.:§f7 the premnt apmal. Hence, he-s__ub:1i'i2;sv i.'haVt 5% rejazmti

11. Heard couns«§w §§n:3"'*§;;*an';4ié1*é\i:§ :§:fsa_reacorris.

12. In taerzi-ss__ at the*a§ip!Vft.eg§§a3i;§ u:§§ji£s'r".Order 4}. Rate 2? of *g:§ §%raduca a vaat extent of mater'm'! f9r'*the' of ma Court. Or: a perusal 9f the c£ss:gma §:§ts£' saﬁgﬁsz be predated, it could ha swan "d:;cufE§3f£ii:$Vcou!d have men gt-oducad by the iﬁhe Triat (laud: imeif. Hawever, it is c§ﬁ§_énd'aci' phi:-:tiﬂ""s cazmseﬁ that, if we "ma? Ccsurt "--vgare éslfﬁiva an cypaarzunity to the plaintiﬁ' w place these :"%:V':¥*»§,h§§':'ials, subsmntiai justica wauid be done to both the

13. In harms of Ordar 43. Ruk 2? cf' CFC, the Appeliaa Caurt may anew such avicisncs G!' ciecument ms ha prmiucaé, but crxiy when thse cancema pa:-hr 3 abée 56 Pk' { 8 esmbiish that netwithsmnding the axercisa of due diligence, the sarm cauld net baa done. The reasr::_fts _§s $ted in the affidavit are born:-fide. That in diiigancze, the sam cauid mt M pr®>ucad_~€:ef'éife:ff§§a --"£frEz§v§ "~ Court. In View of that mawns smizgd :§-nT':§1#'TT§._§f'&d'av'it;VI'E.'{;zm of the coszssaerw vm that the mm M f} diiigenca shouid not thsmferev:v:a:'ci;:_&:§u§in;§t'aVf1_y':afvvfihe hagal righw of the plainﬁﬁ. §;1~--pi»E§é'&%:§n raqui:-as tn be cansidered favourabiy. _..... j» 2 'V V

14. an the materials p£aced:'r.._befara apparent that if the materials V§£_)_£i§l3t i1.') prgigdﬁmd tsmiar Grader 41 Rama 2? <1? cpgzsyaa wan" pt¢¢ug§:a before me Triai Court, the ma:

v:a:%§Auid:ha~ge been beﬁtar informw in the disposai sf L.".1f'e§ *--ss.:¥§; (sf the piaintiff to produce such rnatarial Tris? Court has therafcm M ta grass ,r%:iase:§rri§ga and irzcarrsplete justitaa. tinder these «' £;v§§'5c 'u'rixsw:ces, I' am cf ma czansidara vkw that it wouicf T "59 highly Enaapmgriate no consiéer this amzsal based as:

we éttacumafsa sought ban be preduceud. Tim csnsideratiorx of thwe dacmnents withmzt an appropriate aszidence, waaiﬁ he fuﬁiia and nat is the irsbarmt cs? ji5§ﬁ£e. In View as? W £ 2354;," .

the suﬁstantiai amount if material sought to be proaduced before axis Court, I' am af 612 mnsiéered View that it wit! he highiy inapprapriate and net in 619 Mat inbarjat :3? justice, if the Appeilata Cuurt conshiars the ﬁmew rzzaf things, it wouiﬁ be just, aquimbie to baa: the partias, ifM£h9 carmdereé by him Trial Court, 'A'na;:e'§1éé~%§f"--.. in the interast of justita thaVt'i*§'§fé'--deféi1dva_é'ms an adequate oppartunity §c..V;aunhér'A.£{ﬁ4é.5s:e_doc;§Ené'n&. Hence, in cmser to preheat the }§gis's<x:f"t§at§§:_%i:3§gM'pgrtaaa&e, it mum he ex;;i§ 5§ritA~ Tm ends of justice weuid ramandw B3 thus Trig! Canr; _fcxr }ﬁ*a$hV.:£Tsﬁ£zséi' whils canside-ring the said .---.,4%.,adé:§:'t$£ar:_aV§ r*:':;a'star'i§,""'é.i:"§V the same wauid be nan:-aﬁary rm» j:;iai:_"'aj§z§ adjudicaﬁon nf tha sum "ﬁnd-er these cimumsmncas, it wauld be has ccnsider the appeat an me:-Em The éﬁfkeéﬁzm sf ﬁne ﬁnding recarﬁad by me Triaf Ccwt is T "£.:*:§narvcmar3r so ha gens intn, in viaew ef the findings wwrdeé herain above for rarmnéirig the masimz §}\v/9A/M

16. In View cf we faifure cf we plainﬁff in paws such rmteréai hefore the Trial Elcurg. the prezicus time ef the Ccmrt as wail as that :3? we defendamm has heevsf:' .p:'"uTi; at naught. Hence, whiisa remarsding the cﬁpesai, I' am of the eonsidered view ., twcassary it': the ends of justice IQ imiswad an the plaintiff.

3?, For the aforgamid rfagéainsg-..,¥ p.$s$T.:;h§ §fol{nwing arﬁar:

V V The dag:-ea dam 13*' '"m;'a§:em'.*mer'v.25Gtf3s4 passed by the V11 Add}. 4,5.§v.i§« Judge, Bamgaéore City, in " .¢:;~$_.Na.2934i1999 is set aside, appaai is I-an-sanded tn the Trial 'tour! far frmh dispasai in aamrdance ﬁfth law.

Tim Trial Ceurt ix: cansiéer the appfiacaticn for prwuctiian ef additionai documsnw in accorﬁarme with $33!: and basaé an the abservatitms made heraire abaveg }v9Z«-~ 5 § 5' 11 V} A {Ilsa w wait amendment 9?

pieazﬁngs if any, as a c:::3seqL:_$%2c7ef':"t::bL:'~-- ﬁse remarsé, be considered "

Court in accordance witfi '£a'-av, .g «

vi) 'rm paaintzrf i'$t.3,Er_o:c1aed"f:ta;' ;aay méig. a % sum arf f 1,50,W9:I'~--%,te v§ha._'¥'«2eg :?sttf:§v'Vé'$f this Comm .1sw:it:¥'z§;f;...a ;2ver*ia:2_d er 'szxmaezes fram thus _:;f"._raa;j§:§'f35%;v..A}a"%;:apy cf this arder.

ya) frag 'égagm mags: _:§¥:it¥ii:é :1"'baeriad at one ggﬁy }§;sum 9? f }"5,£}£'.tﬂ/an .... _ i;i1 a§'E1;i:;_3 V~hc'- ﬂ':'et "té'¢§a'§1dants and the « --r§,$#*§#:i'n_»E§1g_&raﬁ6un't -'of % ?s;.eo0;- shall he "rq;eta'::.'; 3'e§E;iV'ta+z§§%}.._:t:r~se""Registry as casw.

_;'v§:§) a*.._$;§:r*:V"l:e:zv*:t:i:+::-as cf the gsrartiﬁ are ieﬂ:

. . . . . ..

he appear befare the 'friai Cami:

2.29:1.

,az) A;_ €4I>n thus assared ce-awratzfams 3%' bath smes, the Triaé Court shalt rm!-ce an endeavour to déspasa off tha suit within a period 51' 5:3: months Fram the dam sf remipt af 3 cap? sf am mréer.

18. The appaai £3 ﬁispsoseé off with the abeve saiﬂ §§f@£t$%"%$.

V' .1 12 Office ta fathwith retum this attire am with Misc. Civl.No,3.9345,!2010 and adétiaorzaf docunmm prewduced a£sng.:witMt. »' '' Ordered accordingly. /__ .1 > M55

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court