Allowed

J.G.Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunil Khanna and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2016NMS/361/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an interim order, the Bombay High Court accepted undertakings by the defendants not to use or apply for specific trademarks. Consequently, the court decreed the suit on the basis of these concessions, withdrew the claim for damages, and disposed of the notice of motion.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed on the basis of defendants' undertakings and withdrawal applications; claim for damages withdrawn.

J.G.Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sunil Khanna and Anr. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

921-NMS-361-2016.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 361 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 99 OF 2016

¶6

J.G. Hosiery Private Limited…Plaintiff
Versus

¶7

Sunil Khanna and Another

¶8

…Defendants

¶9

Mr. Amit Jamsandekar, with Pooja Sharma for the Plaintiff.
Ms. Ritika Agarwal, i/b P.H. More for the Defendants.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 7th October 2016

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.Ms. Agarwal on behalf of Defendants has instructions to state
that as regards the products under the SAGAR MACHO /
SAGAR MACHO TRUNK brand and supplied to C.S.D.,
Mumbai, the last set of supplies was against a purchase order dated
27th May 2016; and that these products were recalled on 20th June
2016 and replaced with items bearing the mark SAGAR HAWK.

¶13

2.As regards the goods with the mark SAGAR COMFY, she
states that the Defendants ceased supply of these goods with effect
from 9th November 2015.

¶14

Page 1 of 3
7th October 2016

¶15

921-NMS-361-2016.DOC

¶16

3.Similarly, for goods under the mark SAGAR SPORT, all
supplies by the Defendants to CSD, Mumbai ceased with effect
from 1st May 2013.

¶17

4. These statements are accepted.

¶18

5.Ms. Agarwal also states that she has instructions to give an
undertaking on behalf of the Defendants that the Defendants will
not adopt any of these marks in relation to these goods. That
undertaking is also accepted.

¶19

6.Ms. Agarwal states that so far as the marks SAGAR COMFY
and SAGAR SPORTS are concerned, these applications or
registrations have been abandoned. The Defendants agree not to
apply again for registration of these marks in their name or in their
name of any sister concern or affiliate hereafter.

¶20

7.As regards SAGAR MACHO / SAGAR MACHO
TRUNK, the Defendants have sought withdrawal of the registration
by an application dated 22nd September 2016. That application will
be taken up by the Registrar of Trade Marks on 20th October 2016
and will be processed on a priority basis preferably on that day itself.
The Defendants will not apply for re-registration of this mark under
any class hereafter. A copy of this order is to be communicated by
the Prothonotary & Senior Master and by the Plaintiffs’ Advocates
to the Registrar of Trade Marks under intimation to the Defendants’
attorneys. The Registrar of Trade Marks is to act on an
authenticated copy of this order. If the matter is not taken up by the

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

7th October 2016

¶23

921-NMS-361-2016.DOC

¶24

Registrar of Trade Marks on that day, liberty to the Plaintiffs to
apply to this Court for further orders.

¶25

8.In view of this, the Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses
(a) and (b). Mr. Jamsandekar withdraws his claim for damages. The
Suit is decreed in these terms.

¶26

9.Drawn up decree is dispensed with. However, should the
parties require a drawn up order or decree, they will be entitled to
apply to the department for one without having to make a separate
application in that behalf and on production of an authenticated
copy of this order.

¶27

10.The Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of
accordingly.

¶28

11. Refund of Court Fees, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶29

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶30

Page 3 of 3
7th October 2016

J.G.Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunil Khanna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.G.Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunil Khanna and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Lassie Mendosia and 5 Ors. Vs Anthony Mathew Dlima and 12 Ors. and Babette Pereira (Applicant)

Black Ticket Films Vs Walter Philip and Anr.

Prspctvs Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 51 Ors.

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Smt. Madhavi Sridhar Vs Smt. Shubha Satish Mhapsekar

Sidharth Baori and 14 Ors. Vs Mantri Realty Limited Cin No. U45202MH2001PLC164434