Plaintiffs sought withdrawal of a suit regarding trademark/trade dress after defendants undertook to remove the impugned mark and refrain from using similar marks. Court accepted undertakings and allowed withdrawal.
The suit was allowed to be withdrawn and the Notice of Motion was disposed of.
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.
905-NMS1047-16.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 315 OF 2016
AND
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1047 OF 2016
Saleem Sarang & Anr.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Hollywood Optical Gallery & 2 Ors.…Defendants
Mr. A. Daver, a/w Ms. Samindra Surve and Mert Sampat, i/b Little
& Co., for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Vinod Bhagat, a/w MR. Dhiren Kavania, i/b M/s. G. S. Hegde
& V. A. Bhagat, for Defendants Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 11th April 2016
PC:-
1.Mr. Bhagat states that he has changed the impugned mark or
label and removed the word “Hollywood”. Mr. Bhagat also states
that there is no entity by the name M/s. Hollywood Optical Gallery
shown as Defendant No.1. Leave to amend without need of
reverification to delete the name of the 1st Defendant from the
cause title. Amendment to be carried out forthwith in Court.
1 of 2
905-NMS1047-16.DOC
2.An image of the remaining Defendants’ proposed trade
dress/mark/trade name is shown to Mr. Daver for the Plaintiffs. On
instructions, he confirms that this is acceptable to the Plaintiffs. A
copy is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.
3.The statement made by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 that they
have changed their trade dress/mark/trade name to the one shown
in the image marked “X” is accepted as undertaking to the Court.
Also accepted as an undertaking to the Court is the Defendants’
statement that they will not use Plaintiffs’ mark or a mark similar to
it for their business. The 3rd Defendant is personally present in
Court and is identified by Mr. Bhagat.
4.In view thereof, the Plaintiffs do not press their claim for
damages. They seek leave to withdraw the Suit. On these
statements being accepted as undertakings to the Court, the Suit is
allowed to be withdrawn.
5. Refund of Court fees, if any, in accordance with Rules.
6.In view of this, the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion does not
survive and is disposed of accordingly.
(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