Disposed

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani v. Applebees Hospitality LLP and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2016NMS/992/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted defendants' undertaking to cease deceptive trademark use and dispose of the suit in terms. The suit against the 7th Defendant was dismissed after they effected the requested domain name transfer.

What did the court decide?

Acceptance of defendants' undertakings; suit disposed of with no order as to costs; refund of court fees; suit against 7th Defendant dismissed as withdrawn.

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani Vs Applebees… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

915-NMS992-15.DOC

¶2

SHEPHALI

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 508 OF 2015

¶4

AND

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 992 OF 2015

¶6

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani…Plaintiff
Versus
Applebees Hospitality LLP & 6 Ors.…Defendants

¶7

Mr. Hemant Thadhani, i/b Krishna & Saurastri Associates, for the
Plaintiff.
Mr. D. A. Dwivedi, for Defendants Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr. Vakul Sharma, i/b Rajlaxmi, for Defendant No. 7.

¶8

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:13th July 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.Heard. As far as the question of transfer of the domain name
is concerned, the 7th Defendant, pursuant to the previous order
dated 17th June 2016, has effected the necessary transfer to the
name of the Plaintiff. This having been done, the Plaintiff seeks to
withdraw the Suit against the 7th Defendant. The Suit is dismissed
as withdrawn against the 7th Defendant.

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

13th July 2016

¶13

915-NMS992-15.DOC

¶14

2.On behalf of Defendants Nos. 1 to 6, a statement is made that
they are not using the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark Nos. 1933379 and
563477 or any other marks deceptively similar thereto. The
Advocate for these Defendants states that they have adopted an
entirely different and new mark, viz., “Bombay Creams”. They
agree that they will not use the mark “Hajiali Cream Centre” or use
in any manner the images annexed at Exhibit “G” to the Plaint or
contained in the artistic work that appears on the Plaintiff’s website.
They also agree that they will not use the mark “Hajiali Cream
Centre” with or without any pictorial device hereafter, unless
permitted to do so in writing by the Plaintiff.

¶15

3.Learned Advocate for the Plaintiff submits that the Suit itself
can be disposed of on these statements being accepted. The
aforesaid statements by Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are accepted as
undertakings to the Court.

¶16

4. The Suit is disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs. Refund of Court fees in accordance with the Rules.

¶17

5. Drawn up decree or order dispensed with.

¶18

6.In view thereof, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is
disposed of as infructuous.

¶19

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶20

Page 2 of 2
13th July 2016

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani v. Applebees Hospitality LLP and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani v. Applebees Hospitality LLP and 6 Ors.

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

Uttamchand Devichand Shah Vs Bansi Jaisingh and Anr.

Sebastian Andrade Vs Expedia Inc. and 3 Ors.

Garware Polyster Limited Vs 3M Company and Anr.

Radhakrishna Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ikkon Films Pvt. Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Jackson Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Prakash Gokar Chamariya @ Prakash G Chamariya

Farid Abdul Latif Noorani Vs Applebees Hospitality LLP and 6 Ors.