Delhi High Court - Orders
Walmart Apollo Llc vs Aayush Jain & Anr on 29 March, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Devanshu
Signing Date:30.03.2022
23:01:33
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (COMM) 565/2021 & I.A. 4825/2022
WALMART APOLLO LLC ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mrs. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Sumit
Wadhwa and Ms. Kriti Rathi,
Advocates. (M:9899783837)
versus
AAYUSH JAIN & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Mahir Malhotra, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 29.03.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. I.A.4825/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)
2. This is an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC filed by the Plaintiff. Vide order dated 12th November, 2021, an interim injunction was granted in this matter, in the below terms:
"20. Considering the submissions made above, the comparison of the two marks would show the plaintiff has a prima facie case and in case the defendants are not restrained ex parte, to use the trademark, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
21. In view of above, till the next date of hearing, the defendants, their successors, servants, agents, licensees, franchisees, representatives, sister concerns, assignees and any one acting for and/or on their behalf from using the trademarks WMART and/or any other mark deceptively similar/identical to the Plaintiff's Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:30.03.2022 23:01:33 trademarks WAL-MART / WALMART, as a trademark/trade name/trading style/domain name with respect to their goods and/or services or in any manner whatsoever, which would amount to infringement of the registered trade mark of the Plaintiff and passing off the goods/services of the defendants as the goods/services of the plaintiff;"
3. Ms. Salhotra, ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff, submits that despite the interim injunction order dated 12th November, 2021, the Defendants are still using the mark 'WMART'.
4. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Defendants submits that he has already given some proposals to the Plaintiff and the Defendants are willing to change the mark to 'WM BAZAAR', if the Plaintiff is willing to give up it costs and damages.
5. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the said proposal has been sent to her client for instructions, however, the Plaintiff may not be agreeable to waive off the prayers seeking costs and damages.
6. Issue notice. Mr. Malhotra, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, accepts notice.
7. Mr. Malhotra, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, submits that he has not been served a copy of this application. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the same has been sent by courier and not by email. Let a copy of the application be served upon ld. Counsel for the Defendants by the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, today itself by email.
8. Let the reply to this application be filed by the Defendants by 5th April, 2022 with an advance copy being served upon the ld. Counsel for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Devanshu Signing Date:30.03.2022 23:01:33 Plaintiff.
9. List for hearing on 8th April, 2022, the date already fixed I.A.1335/2022 (u/O XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) & I.A.1336/2022 (u/O XXV Rule 1 CPC)
10. Let the reply in both these I.As. be filed by the Plaintiff by 5th April, 2022, with an advance copy being served upon the ld. Counsel for the Defendants.
11. List for hearing on 8th April, 2022, the date already fixed.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MARCH 29, 2022/dk/ms