Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9620/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023 undefined 2.1 Petitioner no. 1 - AZURE platform is a cloud computing platform which is a comprehensive set of cloud services that offer developers, IT professionals, and enterprises, freedom to build, deploy and manage applications on any platform or device. A detailed description of the petitioners' cloud computing offerings is stated in the written statement. 'AZURE' was first announced by petitioner no. 1 somewhere in October, 2008 and later on services offered by petitioners under AZURE mark were made available and offered for sale to consumers across about 21 countries including India in February, 2010 and petitioner no. 1 became registrant of azure.com around October, 2008, when it acquired rights to the domain from the prior registrant, who had rights in the said domain since about October, 1995. As per the case of original plaintiff, respondent herein was a private limited company incorporated on 23.04.2001 and later on its name changed to AZURE Knowledge Corporation Pvt. Ltd., on 05.06.2008. According to petitioners, it become owner of the mark by way of Assignment Deed dated 12.04.2004 executed between Styx Infosoft Pvt. Ltd., and AZURE Technologies Pvt. Ltd. A suit came to be filed by the NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9620/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023 undefined respondent in City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, being Civil Suit No. 192 of 2020 alleging infringement and passing of action by inter alia claiming its proprietary right in respect of Trade Mark "AZURE". The details of its registration of different trade mark in different classes as defined under the then notified Trade Mark Rules and according to respondent, original plaintiff had made averments in the plaint regarding wide gambit of goods and services covered by its registrations in various classes, though plaintiff does not deal in most of those goods and services.

2.2. Since the said suit proceedings are of commercial in nature, the same was transferred to Commercial Court/ Division of City Civil Court at Ahmeabad and the suit was registered as Commercial Civil Suit No. 533 of 2021. Upon receipt of summons, present petitioners filed their written statement even to the amended plaint of respondent and it was specific stand of the petitioners that; "(a) the business activity of the plaintiff is limited to KPO/BPO and market research services ; (b) cloud NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9620/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023 undefined computing services offered by petitioners are vastly different and distinct from the respondent's business activities; (c) there is no actual overlap in the offering of rival parties and as such, respondent - original plaintiff may be put to strict proof to show any likelihood of confusion. On the basis of the said stand, after hearing the parties to the proceedings, Commercial Court, dealt with an interim relief application below Exhibit-5, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2022. Said order refusing interim relief was challenged before this Court by way of Appeal from Order No. 120 of 2022, in which reply was filed by petitioners and after hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, according to the petitioners, the Court reserved the order. 2.3. Later on, the present petitioners filed application below Exhibit-92 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for seeking amendment of the written statement, basically to state that the plaintiff's registration for AZURE marks are unreasonably broad and as a result of this, it creates monopolistic rights over wide range of goods and NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9620/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023 undefined services, even though there is no use by the respondent - plaintiff. Moreover, the original plaintiff obtained registration by wrongly claiming use of AZURE marks since May, 1996 in- relation to broad range of goods and services, without placing any documents on records to substantiate such a far-fetched claim and as such, registration of original plaintiff being unreasonably broad in respect of goods and services, a false claim of use raised is liable to be cancelled or even partially cancelled. However, the stand of present petitioners was to add one contention to the effect that law is clear that one registered proprietor cannot file a suit for infringement against another registered proprietor of a trademark and the original defendants are also registered proprietor of the 'WINDOWS AZURE Mark' and accordingly, cannot be held liable for infringement.