Delhi High Court - Orders
Filing Notarized & Apostilled ... vs Parle Agro Private Limited on 12 October, 2023
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma, Dharmesh Sharma
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 217/2023 & CM APPL. 53234/2023 (Ex.
Filing Notarized & Apostilled Affidavit)
PEPSICO, INC. & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Dayan
Krishnan, Sr. Advs. with Mr.
Dheeraj Nair, Mr. Manish K.
Jha, Ms. Shruti Dass and Ms.
Avni Sharma, Advs.
versus
PARLE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. C.M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Pragya
Mishra and Mr. Shashwat
Rakshit, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
ORDER
% 12.10.2023 CAV 538/2023 Since learned counsel for the caveator/respondent has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.
CM APPL. 53235/2023 (Ex.) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application shall stand disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 217/2023 & CM APPL. 53233/2023 (Stay)
1. Notice. Since the respondent is duly represented, let a reply be filed within a period of three weeks from today.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2023 at 22:17:36
2. Presently, and on a prima facie consideration of the submissions which have been addressed, we find that the principal grievance of the appellants is the asserted departure from the procedure as prescribed under Section 124(1)(a)(ii) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It appears that the petition for rectification came to be filed by the respondent sometime in August 2021, and thus even before the Court had heard parties in respect to the formation of a prima facie opinion with respect to invalidity and which is spoken of in sub-clause (2) of that provision. However, the learned Judge has taken on board the pending application and has also provided an opportunity to the appellants here to file its replies/written submissions on the same. This is evident from what appears from the penultimate parts of paragraph 82 of the impugned order.
3. However and rather than staying proceedings on the main suit for a period of three months as the statute envisages, the learned Single Judge appears to have fast tracked the disposal of the rectification application. It is the aforesaid issue which principally concerns the appellants today.
4. However and upon certain suggestions being mooted by the Court, Mr. Nayar and Mr. Krishnan, learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants, without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the appeal, submit that they would file their reply as well as evidence in rectification proceedings within a period of six weeks from today.
5. In view of the above, we permit the appellants to proceed accordingly. We request the learned Judge to postpone the date fixed in the matter for consideration of the rectification proceedings and the matter being called on a date post the one which we propose to fix in This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2023 at 22:17:36 the instant appeal.
6. Let the matter be called again on 14.12.2023.
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
OCTOBER 12, 2023 RW This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2023 at 22:17:37