Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3299-DB &

4. Thereafter, appellant contended that since the respondents were owners of a composite logo mark comprising of the words "Darzi/ The Darzi" they did not have any rights on the individual components therein and that the respondents never claimed protection for the words "Darzi/ The Darzi" as it was common to the trade. Also, even though the respondents applied for the wordmark "The Darzi" vide TM No.900352 dated 28.01.2000, the same was abandoned and so they cannot assert any rights over the word "Darzi".

8. This Court has heard the learned (senior) counsels for both parties at length and gone through the various documents and judgements relied upon by them.

9. While addressing arguments, the learned senior counsel for respondents, after conclusion of arguments by learned counsel for appellant and before commencing his own arguments, contended that the appellant has misled this Court by withholding information that it is no longer using the impugned mark "Darzi On Call" and is instead using the mark "Designer On Call". With a view to fortify the said contention, the learned Senior counsel for respondent handed over a few fresh (additional) documents which, admittedly, are not forming a part of the record before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, learned senior counsel for the first time apprised this Court that after passing of the impugned order under challenge and filing of the present appeal before this Court the respondents have been granted the registrations of the wordmark "The Darzi" in various Classes.

11. In any event, learned senior counsel for respondent, submits that the aforesaid few fresh (additional) documents along with a fresh application seeking interim relief(s) are being filed before the learned Single Judge, meaning thereby, the appellant will also have to be given a chance of rebuttal, i.e., an opportunity for filing its amended written statement and reply to the said application seeking interim relief(s). Thereupon, based on the pleadings therein and if deemed fit, proper and necessary, the appellant may also be given an opportunity of filing additional documents by the learned Single Judge. In view thereof, inherently the nature of the present suit, of which the impugned order is under challenge, will change as it will be on a different footing altogether. At the time of passing of the impugned order, the whole case of the respondents as set out in the plaint was based upon a device mark where the word "Darzi/ The Darzi" was forming a part of the logo whereas now the same respondents have been granted independent rights in the wordmark "Darzi/ The Darzi".

Neutral Citation Number 2023:DHC:3299-DB

12. In fact, the respondents had instituted a suit with respect to the logomark "The Darzi" in Class 24 as they were not the owner of the (now) registered wordmark "The Darzi" though they claimed rights in and to the same as it was forming a part of the logomark "The Darzi". It is also clear that since the grant of registration of the new wordmark "The Darzi", the respondents have amended/ incorporated the pleadings and reliefs qua the same before the learned Single Judge. Needless to say, registration of the wordmark "The Darzi" in the name of respondents instead of the earlier logomark "The Darzi" of the respondents has completely changed the nature of the case on hand.