COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Leave to combine cause of action in passing off with trade mark infringement. Petition made absolute.
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.
903-LPETN45-16.DOC
Atul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION LEAVE PETITION NO. 45 OF 2016
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 175 OF 2016
UltraTech Cement Limited & Anr.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Salsar Cement & 4 Ors.…Defendants
Mr. Amit Jamsandekar, with Ms. Alka Parelkar & Ms. Esha Trivedi,
i/b V.A. Associates, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Sayantan Basu, with Partha Chakrabarthy, & Devasis Mitra,
i/b Legal Assistance, for the Defendants.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J. DATED: 18th March 2016
PC:-
1.Heard. The Petition seeks leave seeks to combine a cause of
action in passing off with the cause of action in trade mark
infringement pleaded in the Plaint.
2.The reasons for seeking this relief are set out in paragraph 9
of the Petition. Here, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs state that it has its
registered office in Mumbai. In view of the provisions of Section
134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, at least as regards their cause of
action in infringement, this Court has jurisdiction. The question is
1 of 2
903-LPETN45-16.DOC
whether they should be permitted to combine the cause of action in
passing off. It is not possible, at this stage, to assess the merits of
the case, i.e., whether there is or is not a case made out in
infringement or even in passing off. As I understand it, what the
Petitioners/Plaintiffs claim is that while the Defendants have
certain registrations, the mark they use, and which the Plaintiffs
complain of, is not the Defendants’ registered mark but is another
mark altogether. It is on this basis that reliefs in infringement and
passing off are sought. Whether the Plaintiffs have made out a case
on either or both causes of action or not will undoubtedly have to be
deferred to the hearing of the ad-interim application or perhaps
even to the Notice of Motion itself, with all contentions being
expressly kept open for the present.
3.At this stage, however, there is no reason to deny the relief
sought in the Petition under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent. The
Petition is, accordingly, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
2 of 2
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court