Dismissed

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2010APP/943/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench disposed of an appeal filed against an ad-interim order restraining the appellant from using the respondent's trade mark. Dismissing the appeal, the court declined to interfere, issued status directions to the parties, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed without expressing opinion on the merits; interim directions for filing affidavits and rejoinders are issued.

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2010)

１

srk

app-943-10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2010 IN

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1537 OF 2010 IN

¶7

SUIT NO.1449 OF 2010

¶8

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Private Limited Versus Kamat Hotels (India) Limited.

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Mr.D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.P. Sen i/by M/s. Gajria & Co. for the appellant.

¶12

Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Bhagat, Mr. Dhiren Karania, Mr. Punit Jani and Mr. Suryakank Rao i/by M/s. G.S. Hegde and Mr. V.A. Bhagat for the respondent.

¶13

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶14

Monday, September 20, 2010

¶15

P .C.

¶16

This appeal is filed against the ad-interim order dated 22 July 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion No.1537 of 2010 restraining the appellant-defendant from using the respondent-plaintiff's registered trade mark, "THE ORCHID" with floral arrangement. The Notice of Motion is still pending and is to be heard by the learned Single Judge.

¶17

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the appellant-defendant is running hotel by name and style of "THE BEACH ORCHID" with the same floral arrangement and having regard to the fact that although the appellant-defendant had sought time for filing

２

srk

app-943-10

affidavit-in-reply to the notice of motion, they did not file reply, the learned Single Judge has passed order in the notice of motion, we are not inclined to interfere with the ad-interim order. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties, we leave it open to the appellant-defendant to file affidavit-in-reply to the notice of motion within three weeks from today and the respondent-plaintiff shall file their rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

¶22

3. Subject to the above directions, appeal is dismissed.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. Vs Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

Blue Star Ltd.,Mumbai. Vs Ravin Cables Ltd., Mumbai.

Teresa Rajan Nair, Mumbai. Vs 1. Vincent Fernandes, Thana.

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Sachin Y. Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.