The Bombay High Court disposed of claims in an infringement suit and notice of motion, dismissing the notice of motion and leaving specific rights and contentions open regarding the suit prayers.
Notice of Motion dismissed; rights and contentions under suit prayer (a) left open.
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.
278-NMS822-16.DOC
SHEPHALI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 209 OF 2016
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 822 OF 2016
Hm Megabrands Pvt. Ltd.…Plaintiffs
Versus
H And M Hennes & Mauritz AB & Anr.…Defendants
Mr. Hiren Kamod, a/w Mr. Raj Rao, i/b Khaitan & Co., for the
Plaintiffs.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, a/w Mr. Ramesh Gajria, i/b Gajria & Co., for the
Defendants.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 4th October 2016
PC:-
1.The Defendants have filed an infringement and passing off
action in the Delhi High court. Prayer clauses (a), (c) and (d) of the
Suit are infructuous. I think it is doubtful that even prayer clause (e)
survives, but I will make no comment on this today.
2.As to the Notice of Motion, prayer clause (a) is for a
declaration. This is effectively a decree in the Suit. I will not grant it.
Prayer clauses (b) and (c) will not survive. The Notice of Motion is,
therefore, dismissed.
Page 1 of 2
4th October 2016
278-NMS822-16.DOC
3.As regards prayer clause (a), all rights and contentions are left
open.
(G. S. PATEL, J.)
Page 2 of 2
4th October 2016
G.S. PATEL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court