Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Plaintiff's trademark application in class-11 for its mark 'SUJATA' filed on 28th July, 2014 was on 'proposed to be used' basis which clearly shows that the defendant No.1's user for mark 'SUJATA' in class-11 was prior in time and despite advertisement of the said mark, the plaintiff never opposed the registration of the said device mark 'SUJATA' in favour of Rajesh Kumar Bansal in relation to water purifiers, water filters and RO system. Rajesh Kumar Bansal, the licensor on 21 st June, 2016 had objected to the plaintiffs registration of the trademark, this opposition is specifically within the knowledge of the plaintiff which fact has been concealed in the present suit. The Plea of the plaintiff that it could not have known that Rajesh Kumar Bansal was the Director of present Defendant No.1 is sham argument as the master data of the defendant No.1 clearly shows that Rajesh Kumar Bansal is one of the Directors. Both Luxmi Enterprises and defendant No.1 have registered addresses at Bhatinda with Rajesh Kumar Bansal as the common link and the plea of different addresses of Luxmi CS (COMM) 60/2020 Page GUPTA Signing Date:09.09.2020 12:07:08 Enterprises and Rajesh Kumar Bansal being taken is an act of gross concealment and suppression. Further the plaintiff also filed opposition to the defendant No.1's two trademark application being 4282373 and 4282374 in class-11 on 6th February, 2020. In the said notices of opposition the plaintiff clearly refers to Mr.Rajesh Kumar Bansal and M/s Luxmi Enterprises. Thus now to say that the plaintiff was not aware of the link between Luxmi Enterprises and Rajesh Kumar Bansal or between Sujata Home Appliances and Rajesh Kumar Bansal is only a mala fide conduct. The defendant No.1 is not seeking vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction in totality but seeking the modification thereof in terms of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. Referring to the order of this Court dated 7th February, 2020, it is stated that from the order itself it is evident that in the product list of the plaintiff there is no mention of water purifiers, water filter and RO system and since the plaintiff was not dealing in water purifiers, water filter and RO system, thus this Court ought not have injuncted the defendant No.1 to that extent. Defendant No.1 by this application only seeks modification of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction to the extent permitting the defendant No.1 to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, advertise its product namely Water Purifiers, Water Filters and RO System, the limited registration granted in favour of the defendant No.1 under the mark 'SUJATA'. The claim of the defendant No.1 at this stage pending disposal in the suit is only vacation of the stay qua the products water purifier, water filters, RO system in which admittedly till date the plaintiff has not dealt with by either manufacturing or selling the same. Referring to Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC learned counsel for the defendant No.1 states that in case of suppression and concealment there is a mandate on the Court CS (COMM) 60/2020 Page GUPTA Signing Date:09.09.2020 12:07:08 to vacate the ex parte ad interim order unless the Court records its reason as to why such vacation is not necessary in the interest of justice. The second proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC is irrelevant to the facts of the present case. In terms of the mandate under the first proviso to Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC an ex-parte ad-interim order is liable to be vacated in its entirety. In any case the modification as sought by defendant No.1 is required to be allowed. Reliance is placed on the decision reported as AIR 1994 SC 853 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Since the plaintiff has approached the Court on the basis of a false suit, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with permission to defendant No.1 to resume sale of water purifiers, water filters and RO system covered by its device trademark registration No.2337951 on 'SUJATA' in class-11.

19. A perusal of the para-4 of the plaint itself would reveal that the defendant No.1 never opposed the trademark registration application of the plaintiff except application No.2782142 for STAR SUJATA since the same was for proposed use of the mark in relation to water purifiers, water filter sand RO system. At the time of filing the opposition on 21st June, 2016 the defendant No.1 was already registered proprietor in class-11 of the mark 'SUJATA' and was a prior-cum-sole user of the mark 'SUJATA' in relation of water purifiers, water filters and RO system. The defendant No.1's seniority and exclusivity of the use of the mark 'SUJATA' in relation to water purifier, water filter and RO system is irrefutable since even as on today the plaintiff is not selling these three products and it is only defendant No.1 who has used said mark for the purpose of water purifier, water filters and RO system for the last 12 years prior to the institution of the suit and in CS (COMM) 60/2020 Page GUPTA Signing Date:09.09.2020 12:07:08 any case has invoices for the last seven years from the filing of the suit. The two examination reports relied by the plaintiff in respect of other trademark applications of Rajesh Kumar Bansal being 3090601 and 3090602 relate to heating and cooling apparatuses such as geysers and rods in calss-11.

24. It is contended that the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff on the invalidity of the trademark registration of the defendant No.1 are untenable for the reason plaintiff has never actually used the mark 'SUJATA' in the context of water purifiers, water filter and RO systems despite having applied for the mark on 28th July, 2014. Whereas the licensor of defendant No.1 applied for the trademark registration of the mark 'SUJATA' on 25th May, 2012 and was granted the same on 8th April, 2014 with the user date of 1st April, 2008 and atleast invoices from June, 2013. No material has been placed on record to show that there has been actual confusion or deception in relation to water purifiers, water filter and RO systems and the plaintiff is clearly a squatter of the mark 'SUJATA' in relation to water purifiers, water filters and RO systems under class-11 as it has neither used the mark for the said goods since 2014 nor has shown any intention to use the mark for the said goods. Thus the grant of registration in favour of Rajesh Bansal in class-11 for the said goods is perfectly valid in terms of the law laid down in Nandhini Deluxe (supra).

32. It is a matter of fact that in the suit, the plaintiff did not plead that Rajesh Kumar Bansal, the sole proprietor of M/s Luxmi Enterprises was a registered proprietor of the trademark 'SUJATA' in respect of a category of CS (COMM) 60/2020 Page GUPTA Signing Date:09.09.2020 12:07:08 goods, that is, water purifiers, water filters and RO system. The plea taken by the plaintiff is that despite due diligence there was no way that the plaintiff would have come to know that the same Rajesh Bansal who is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'SUJATA' for the three goods as mentioned above is the Director of defendant No.1. The grounds urged in this favour are that the application for registration was filed by Luxmi Enterprises and the address of Bhatinda of the defendant No.1 is also different. A perusal of the trademark registration granted vide application No.2337951 in class-11 in respect of water purifiers, RO systems and water filters noted the proprietor's name as Rajesh Bansal trading as Luxmi Enterprises single firm and the proprietor's address was Bengali Wali Gali, Near Bus Stand, Bhatinda-15001. The master data with the Registrar of Companies in respect of the defendant No.1 company, which is a public document filed by the defendant No.1 under the name Sujata Home Appliances Pvt. Limited clearly notes Rajesh Kumar Bansal as one of its Directors w.e.f. 1st October, 2019. Admittedly the suit has been filed by the plaintiff after 1st October, 2019. No doubt in the master data the registered address of Sujata Home Appliances Pvt. Limited, that is, defendant No.1 has been mentioned as Rajesh Kumar #12, Kamal Cinema Road, Bhatinda, Bathinda, Pb, 151001 IN, however, the fact that Rajesh Kumar Bansal was one of the directors of defendant No.1 was sufficient for the plaintiff to have carried out further investigation and found out whether it was the same Rajesh Bansal in whose favour registration of the mark 'SUJATA' has been granted, particularly in view of the fact that due to earlier objections and proceedings before the Trade Mark Registry, plaintiff was aware that one CS (COMM) 60/2020 Page GUPTA Signing Date:09.09.2020 12:07:08 Rajesh Kumar Bansal through Luxmi Enterprises has a registration of mark 'SUJATA' in his favour.