Allowed

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. v. Rashtriya Metal Industries

Bombay HC22 Sept 2016S/3000/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for judgment for want of Written Statement in a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. Court held refusal of service by Defendants was their own responsibility and decreed the suit based on Plaintiffs' evidence.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed; Plaintiffs granted permanent injunction against use of 'Rashtriya Metal' mark/trading name and ordered Defendants to render accounts of profits.

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. Vs Rashtriya Metal… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

915-NMS1206-16.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 3000 OF 2010

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1206 OF 2016

¶6

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Rashtriya Metal Industries…Defendants

¶7

Mr. Kishore D. Shah , for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Rajendra Choudhary ,General Manager (Sales) of the Plaintiff Company, present.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 22nd September 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.This is the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion under Rule 90 of the
Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules for a judgment for want of
Written Statement.

¶11

2. Heard Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the Plaintiffs.

¶12

3.The Suit is an action in trademark infringement and passing
of in respect of the Plaintiffs’ mark RASTRIYA METAL. It also
seeks to restrain the Defendants from using the trading or firm name
of Rashtriya Metal Industries. The Plaintiffs have produced a

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

22nd September 2016

¶15

915-NMS1206-16.DOC

¶16

compilation of documents. The compilation is taken on record and
marked in evidence As Exhibit “P”, collectively. Mr. Rajendra
Choudhary, General Manger (Sales) of the Plaintiffs company is
personally present in Court. He attests to the correctness of the
statements made in the Plaint.

¶17

4.The Defendants were served with a Writ of Summons. There
is an Affidavit dated 6th January 2012. That Affidavit shows that the
office of the Sheriff, which despatched the packet, received back the
packed with the remark “refused”. A refusal of service is the
Defendants’ own responsibility.

¶18

5.The Suit is accordingly decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a),
(b), (c) and (d), which read as follows, and costs.

¶19

“(a)That the Defendants by themselves their servants
and agents be restrained by a permanent order and
injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any manner using
any of the metal products or any of the goods in class 6
of the 4th Schedule of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and the
Rules framed thereunder with mark ‘Rastriya Metal’ or
any other mark or label or Logo identical to or similar to
Plaintiffs’ mark or their Logo, duly registered under the
Trade Mark Act, 1999 bearing No. 380961 or bearing No.
1725996 or bearing No. 131750 in class 6.

¶20

(b)That the Defendants by themselves their servants
and agents be restrained by permanent order and
injunction of the Hon’ble Court from in any manner using
trading style or the name “Rashtriya Metal Industries” or
any other trading style or name containing the word

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

22nd September 2016

¶23

915-NMS1206-16.DOC

¶24

‘Rashtriya Metal’ or any other word or mark deceptively
similar to Plaintiffs’ name or trading style.

¶25

(c)That the Defendants by themselves their servants
and agents be restrained by permanent order and
injunction of the Hon’ble Court from in any manner using
mark “Rashtriya Metal” or any other mark containing word
“Rashtriya Metal” or any mark deceptively similar thereto
so as to pass off their goods and/or business as and for
the goods or business of the Plaintiffs.

¶26

(d)The Defendants be ordered to render a true and
faithfully accounts of the profits earned by them by using
the mark of the Plaintiffs or any identical mark thereto
and on such accounts being taken, pass a decree in
favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants
together with interest at 12% per annum.”

¶27

6. Drawn up decree dispensed with.

¶28

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

22nd September 2016

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. v. Rashtriya Metal Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. v. Rashtriya Metal Industries

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

Mrs. Sudhbai Narsing Pupala and Ors. Vs Narsubai S. Pupala and Ors. and Samar v. Pupala and Anr.

jayshree mukesh gotecha Vs jayesh ramniklal gotecha and aruna asit mavani and anr.(Pro.Def.)

Satvik Rajiv Samani and Another Vs Smt. Shardaben Prabhudas Samani and Ors.

Smt Sona Damodar Papani Vs Master Sanjay Damodar Papani (Minor) and Miss Aditi Damodar Papani (Minor)

Rashtriya Metal Industries Ltd. Vs Rashtriya Metal Industries

Wanbury Limited Vs Venberry Health Care Pvt. Ltd.