Defendants agreed to submit a decree and confirmed cessation of infringing activity. The court granted permanent injunction under prayer clauses (a) and (c) and disposed of the suit with no order as to costs.
Decree of permanent injunction granted in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c); suit disposed; pending chamber summons disposed.
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.
910-S-20282011.DOC
ars
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2028 OF 2011
…Plaintiffs
The Indian Express Limited…Plaintiffs
Versus
Vijay Budhia & Ors. …Defendants
Mr.Amol Joshi, i/b Poorvi Kamani, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr.Abhijeet Singh Chavan, for the Defendants.
CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:6th August 2014
PC:-
1.Learned advocate for the Defendants has written instructions
that the Defendants are agreeable to submit a decree in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (c) of the Plaint.
2.In view thereof, and on the Defendants also making certain
further statements and clarifications as noted below, Mr.Joshi,
learned advocate for the Plaintiff does not press prayer clauses (d)
and (e) of the plaint.
1 of 4
910-S-20282011.DOC
3. In that view of the matter, there will be a decree in favour of
the Plaintiffs and against Defendants in terms of prayer clauses (a)
and (c) which read as follows:
(a) grant a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants jointly and severally thereby injuncting their successor in interest, their legal heirs, assigns, servants, agents, associates, nominees company in which they are director and/or all and any person claiming through or under them from in any manner, whatsoever making use of the Plaintiffs’ registered Trade Marks “Jansatta”, its cognate or agnate forms either in isolation or in conjunction with any other words or symbols or marks whether in Hindi, or English or in any other language and the flame of hope with the words “Indian Express Group”, and/or any other deceptively similar marks so as to infringe the Plaintiffs registered Trade Marks and intellectual property, the names of the Plaintiffs and/or their predecessors in interest, and/or the name of Shri Om Thanvi, Editor and/or the name of Shri Viveck Goenka, Chairman of the Board, for any activity whatsoever relating to the publication of a newspaper, news journal, weekly, magazine, periodical, or such printed matter, its online edition or in any website.
(c) That the Defendants jointly and severally their successors in interest, their legal heirs, assigns, servants, agents, associates, nominees, company in which they are directors and/or all and any person claiming through or under them be restrained from using any of the Plaintiffs registered Marks or deceptively similar marks by
2 of 4
910-S-20282011.DOC
itself or in combination with any other word or words so as to pass off or enable others to pass of their goods and services as those of the Plaintiffs.
4.The Plaintiffs do not press their claim under prayers (d) and
(e).
5.Mr. Chavan, learned advocate for the Defendants, on
instructions states that there are now no goods, publications,
papers, dyes or other material bearing the impugned marks, or with
the names of the Plaintiffs, their employees or Shri Viveck Goenka.
In that view of the matter, Mr. Joshi does not press prayer (f) of the
Plaint.
6. Mr. Joshi also does not press prayer (g).
7.The learned advocate for the Defendants also confirms that
there are no copies of Jansatta being published any further. He
agrees and undertakes to that the website www.jansattaraipur.com
is not being used and will not hereafter be used. The Defendants
will also cooperate with the Plaintiffs and take such steps as are
necessary to transfer the domain name, without any charges, to the
Plaintiffs within the period of six months from today.
8.Mr. Chavan also states that the Defendants do not have with
them any stationery, bills, papers, advertisements etc using the
impugned marks or any marks similar or deceptively similar to the
marks to the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs. In that view of
the matter, Mr. Joshi does not press prayers (j) and (k) of the plaint.
3 of 4
910-S-20282011.DOC
9. Both parties confirm undertake to this Court that they have no surviving claim against each other. In that view of the matter, Mr. Joshi also does not press prayer clause (l) of the plaint.
10.Suit is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to
costs. Decree to be drawn accordingly.
11.The pending Chamber Summons No. 727 of 2014 is also
disposed of with no order as to costs.
12.The Plaintiffs’ original documents to be returned to the
advocates for the plaintiffs on these being substituted with
photocopies authenticated by the plaintiffs’ advocates.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for permanent injunction relating to trade marks should be allowed when defendants agree to submit decree.
Whether prayers relating to specific coercive steps are pressed when goods bearing marks are no longer in existence.
How the suit and pending chamber summons are to be disposed of upon mutual confirmation of no surviving claims.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Indian Express Limited
Vijay Budhia & Ors.
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court