Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Vol. A, Part (a), p. 39.

Vol. A, Part (a), p. 37.

Vol. G-1, pp. 224-226.

Vol. G-1, pp. 227-245.

Thane Dist Ct R&P Vol. II ("D-2"), p. 787; Vol. G-2, Tab 2 Thane Dist Ct R&P Vol. II ("D-2"), p. 1081; Vol. G-2, Tab 5 Thane Dist Ct R&P Vol. II ("D-2"), p. 1141; Vol. G-2, Tab 5 9 of 103 NMS-497-14-CTR-V-SERGI-F02.DOC No.27 of 2006 in the Calcutta High Court. Sergi was the 2nd plaintiff to this suit. The four other defendants to the suit were various corporate purchasers of the competing fire systems. The application for interim reliefs was opposed. On 22nd February 2006, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed CTR to continue to sell its product, inter alia recording a statement by Sergi's counsel that the two products were different.10 By an order dated 17th April 2006, the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court declined to re- hear Sergi's application as a new motion, but clarified that the statement made on 22nd February 2006 on behalf of Sergi would not bind at the final hearing of Sergi's motion. On 7th February 2011, Sergi unconditionally withdrew its suit.

4. In the meantime, Philippe Magnier, who held Indian Patent No. 189089 and was a Director at Sergi (France), filed a patent infringement action against CTR as Civil Suit No.27 of 2006 in the Calcutta High Court. Sergi (France) was the 2nd plaintiff to this suit. The four other defendants to the suit were various companies as purchasers of the competing fire systems. The application for interim reliefs was opposed. On 22nd February 2006, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowed CTR to continue to sell its product in accordance with law, inter alia recording a statement by counsel for Sergi (France) that the two products were different.113 By an order dated 17th April 2006, the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court declined to re-hear the application by Sergi (France) as a new motion, but clarified that the statement made on 22nd February Vol. A, Part (a), p. 39.