Partly allowed

Ceat Ltd. v. Chandra Polymers and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2013NMS/214/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the absence of the defendants, the High Court of Bombay allowed the plaintiff's leave petition for appointment of a receiver under Order XL Rule 1 CPC to seize infringing goods. Temporary injunctions were also granted restraining defendants from infringing the plaintiff's trademarks and copyright.

What did the court decide?

Allow leave petition; grant temporary injunctions against trademark and copyright infringement; appoint Court Receiver to seize goods and manufacturing tools.

Ceat Ltd. Vs Chandra Polymers and 3 Ors. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

NMS 214 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.214 OF 2013 IN

¶3

SUIT NO.85 OF 2013 WITH

¶4

LEAVE PETITION NO.30 OF 2013

¶5

Ceat Limited .....Plaintiff Versus Chandra Polymers and Ors. .....Defendants

¶6

Mr. H.W.Kane with Mr. A.H.Kane and Ms. Tanvee Dighe i/by M/s. W.S.Kane and Co., for Plaintiff. None for Defendants.

¶7

CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 12th JULY 2013

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

Perused the order dated 08-02-2013. The Defendant No.1

¶10

which is a partnership firm of which Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the partners, have been served with the Notice of Motion. Infact, even the writ of summons in the Suit is also served on the Defendant Nos.1 to 3. A copy of the petition seeking leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent Act, is also served on the Defendant Nos.1 to 3. However, none of the Defendants have come forward to either defend the Suit or the Notice of Motion. The Leave Petition is therefore, allowed. The Notice of Motion is also allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) (c) and (d), which read thus :

1/4

ssp

NMS 214 of 2013

(a) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants by themselves, their partners, servants, employees, agents, dealers, distributors and all persons claiming under them be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark “CEAT” bearing registration Nos.204251, 466079, 561135 and 605276 all in Class 12 and the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks “SAMRAT and “CEAT SAMRAAT” bearing registration Nos.593741 and 604993 and 604994 all in class 12 by using the impugned trade marks “CECAT” and “SAMRAT” shown at Exhibits “N-1” and “N2” to the plaint or any other mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s said registered trade marks in respect of pneumatic tyres and tubes for vehicles and/or the goods covered by the Plaintiff’s said registrations and/or in respect of similar goods or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶15

(b) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants, by themselves, their partners, servants, employees, agents, dealers, distributors and all persons claiming under them be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright in its artistic work CEAT logo by reproducing and/or publishing and/or using the impugned work shown at Exhibits “N-1” and “N-2” to the plaint or any other work which is a reproduction of the Plaintiff’s said work or substantial part thereof or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶16

(c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, the Defendants by themselves, their partners, servants, employees, agents, dealers, distributors and all persons claiming under them

2/4

ssp

NMS 214 of 2013

be restrained by a temporary order and injunction of this Court from manufacturing, marketing, selling, trading in, advertising and/or otherwise dealing in tyres and/or similar goods under the impugned trade marks “CECAT” and “SAMRAT” shown at Exhibits N-1 and N-2 to the Plaint or under any other trade mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade marks “ CEAT” AND “SAMRAT/SAMRAAT” and /or “CEAT” so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendant's goods as and for the Plaintiff's well known goods or in any other manner whatsoever;

¶21

(d) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be appointed under Order XL Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as the Receiver of the Defendants’ goods bearing the impugned trade marks “CECAT” and “SAMRAT” and/or bearing under the impugned trade marks shown at Exhibits “N-1” and “N-2” to the plaint with all powers to enter the premises of the Defendants and/or their partners, agents and/or servants without notice to the Defendants or to their partners, agents and/or servants and with the help of the police if necessary, to seize and take charge, possession and control of all the tyres bearing the aforesaid impugned trade marks and also to take charge and possession of all other goods, things including blocks, moulds and dies, records, account books showing manufacture, stock and/or sale of tyres bearing the impugned trade marks “CECAT” and “SAMRAT” and/or bearing under the impugned trade marks shown at Exhibits “N-1” and “N-2” to the plaint in possession and control of the Defendants and/or their partners, agents and/or servants.

3/4

ssp

NMS 214 of 2013

The Defendants are directed to file their Written Statement within a period of three weeks from today. Office to forthwith issue fresh Writ of Summons, returnable on 2^nd August, 2013 for being served on Defendant No.4. Place the Suit for 'Directions on 05-08-2013.

¶26

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶27

4/4

¶28

ssp

Ceat Ltd. v. Chandra Polymers and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ceat Ltd. v. Chandra Polymers and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harshad Vora Vs Jainal Shah

M. Junction Services Ltd. Vs Metal Junction and Anr.

Kamat Hotels (India) Limited. Vs Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and Anr.

Abp Pvt. Ltd. Vs Alloyed Infomedia Pvt. Ltd.

Gopi Gorwani Vs Ideal Chs.Ltd.and 3 Ors.

Rupen Vasant Vikamsey Vs Om Prakash Sahgal and Anr.