This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 474 of 2008
IN
SUIT NO. 385 of 2008
Dabur India Ltd. v/s.
...Plaintiffs
Daxal Cosmetics Private Limited & anr. ...Defendants
Mr. Vijay Tulzapurkar, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr. Sumit Raghani i/b. PDS Legal for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Punit Jani i/b. G.S.hegde & V.A. Bhagat for defendants.
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
DATED:- September 24, 2009.
P.C.
This Court upon hearing Counsel for the Plaintiff had passed ad-interim
order in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (d) for reasons recorded in its order dated
22nd January, 2008. The Defendants have been duly served. Defendant No. 1
who is the contesting party has not chosen to file any reply affidavit so far.
Whereas, Counsel appearing for the said Defendant No. 1 states on instructions that the Defendant No. 1 has already stopped using the trade marks in question.
2
In view of this statement, ad-interim relief as granted is confirmed. Accordingly, Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b) and (d). Motion disposed of in the above terms.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)
A.M. Khanwilkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
